HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 03/23/2016REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Closed Session Begins at 4:30 PM
March 23, 2016 – 5:30 PM
31111 GREENSPOT ROAD, HIGHLAND, CA 92346
AGENDA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed
with the District Secretary by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday
meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of
Directors”.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker Card
and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is
limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the
State of California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or
taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically
be referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda
at a future meeting.
AGENDA - This agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.
Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing
on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a determination that an
emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on the item came to the
attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
1. Approval of Agenda
RECESS INTO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(d)(2)
One Potential Case
5:30 P.M. RECONVENE MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
3.APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Board of
Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the Board considers the motion unless
members of the Board, the General Manager, or the public request specific items to
be discussed.
a)Approve the February 24, 2016 regular board meeting minutes
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEM
4.Consider Action on Resolutions Relating to Sterling Natural Resources Center
Project
a)Adopt Resolution 2016.01 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the
Sterling Natural Resource Center (SCH #2015101058); and
b)Adopt Resolution 2016.02 adopting CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project (SCH #2015101058) and
approving the Sterling Natural Resource Center, and Resolutions 2016.03,
2016.08, and 2016.09 regarding the State Revolving Fund financing application
for the project.
OLD BUSINESS
5.Facility Rental Update
REPORTS
6.Board of Directors’ Reports
7.General Manager/CEO Report
8.Legal Counsel Report
9.Board of Directors’ Comments
ADJOURN
PLEASE NOTE:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet
are available for public inspection in the District’s office located at 31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, during
normal business hours. Also, such documents are available on the District’s website at www.eastvalley.org
subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disability-related modification or
accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services that is sought in order to participate in the above-
agendized public meeting should be directed to the District Clerk at (909) 885-4900 at least 72 hours prior
to said meeting.
1
Minutes 2/24/2016 smg
Pending Approval
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT February 24, 2016
REGULAR BOARD MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Jody Scott
led the flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Morales,Shelton, Smith
ABSENT: None
STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Jose Martinez, Assistant
General Manager; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Justine
Hendricksen, District Clerk; Shayla Gerber, Administrative
Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche
GUEST(s): Members of the public
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Coats declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5 :31
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/S/C (Shelton-Smith) that the February 24, 2016 agenda be approved as
submitted.
APPROVE THE JANUARY 13, 2016 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board approve the January 13, 2016 regular
board meeting minutes as submitted.
APPROVE THE JANUARY 27, 2016 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board approve the January 27, 2016 regular
board meeting minutes as submitted.
2
Minutes 2/24/2016 smg
DISBURSEMENTS
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the General Fund Disbursements #246669 through
#246896 which were distributed during the period of January 1, 2016 through January
31, 2016, bank drafts and ACH Payments in the amount of $1,707,275.31 and
$327,058.57 for payroll and benefit contributions, totaling $2,034,333.88 be approved.
ACCEPT AND FILE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF, AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED,
JANUARY 31, 2016
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board accept and file the financial statements
as of, and for the period ended, January 31, 2016 as submitted.
STAFF PRESENTATION REGARDING WATER AND WASTEWATER FEES AND CHARGES
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) provided a detailed presentation regarding water and
wastewater fees and charges. He reviewed the miscellaneous fees for finance,
engineering, and operations. He noted that most miscellaneous fees have been in place
for more than ten years and stated the importance of reviewing the fees, and ensuring
the fees cover actual costs of providing service. He introduced backflow and operations
miscellaneous fees and presented a proposed fee schedule of the three departments.
Information only.
ADJOURN TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:43 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Coats declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5 :43
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed
at 5:44 p.m.
ADJOURN TO REGULAR BOARD MEETING AT 5:44 P.M.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Director Morales stated that the fees reflect true cost of service and the action to adopt
the miscellaneous fees and charges is responsible fiscal management.
Chairman Coats asked if the increase to customer deposits would decrease the amount
of liens filed each month. The CFO responded that the proposed deposit was equal to
approximately two months of the average customer water bill, which should reflect a
decrease in the amount of liens filed each month and that the new fees would become
effective April 1, 2016.
3
Minutes 2/24/2016 smg
ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016.05 UPDATING MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES
M/S/C (Morales-Shelton) that the Board adopt Resolution 2016.05 updating
Miscellaneous Fees and Charges as submitted.
Roll call vote:
Director Morales - Yes
Director Shelton - Yes
Director Smith - Yes
Vice Chairman Carrillo – Yes
Chairman Coats - Yes
ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016.04 ACCELERATED PAYMENT RESOLUTION
The Chief Financial Officer discussed the benefits of adopting Resolution 2016.04,
stating that by accelerating payments on the inter-fund borrowing and repayment
schedule is beneficial because the need for liquid assets to fund capital expenditures
has shifted from the Water Fund to the Wastewater Fund; the Water Fund is currently
paying preliminary costs for the Sterling Natural Resource Center until funds can be
secured.
The Board discussed the benefits of paying off the entire loan early and agreed it would
be beneficial to the District to do so instead of leaving a residual balance as originally
presented by the Chief Financial Officer.
M/S/C (Carrillo-Morales) that the Board adopt Resolution 2016.04 Accelerated
Payment Resolution.
REVIEW AND APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW
The Chief Financial Officer presented the Mid-Year Budget Review to the Board which
included reviewing a summary of the Water and Wastewater Fund, a water sales
analysis, the status of annual goals and objectives of each department, examples of how
the District is committed to public service, what measures the District has taken to
enhance District identity, capital improvement projects, and accomplishments of the
District.
The General Manager/CEO stated that State conservation mandates went into effect
after the budget was originally adopted and the budget will require some changes due
to those mandates. He stated that Tier 3 revenues are being used to help prevent
customers from going into Tier 3 by implementing programs and resources.
M/S/C (Carrillo-Shelton) that the Board of Directors approve amendments to the
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating and Capital Budget.
4
Minutes 2/24/2016 smg
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ REPORTS
Director Morales reported on the following: he attended the San Bernardino Water Board
of Commissioners meeting on February 16th where they discussed issues regarding the
San Bernardino Charter Reform Advisory Committee; on February 18th he met with the
Association of California Water Agencies Region 9 where they discussed the topic for the
upcoming conference in May. He attended the Recycled Water Ad-Hoc Committee
meeting to discuss the Sterling Natural Resource Center. On February 22nd he attended
the Finance/Policy Committee meeting where they discussed the goals and objectives
of the committee.
Director Shelton reported on the following: on February 16th she attended a presentation
put on by San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District where they discussed the
annual Inland Solar Challenge; on February 22nd she attended the Association of San
Bernardino County Special Districts where they discussed generating revenue on ground
leasing cell towers.
Director Smith reported on the following: on February 22nd he attended the
Finance/Policy Committee meeting to discuss items related to the committee.
Vice Chairman Carrillo reported on the following: on February 23rd he attended the
Highland City Council meeting where they discussed the Highland City Council becoming
a part of the Recycled Water Center Ad-Hoc Committee; on February 22nd he attended
ACWA’s Legal Affairs Committee meeting.
Chairman Coats reported on the following: on February 16th he attended San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District where they approved a Resolution supporting the
Sustainability Groundwater Management Plan and the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land
Exchange Act. On February 18th he attended the Recycled Water Ad-Hoc Committee
meeting to discuss the Sterling Natural Resource Center; on February 22nd he attended
the Association of San Bernardino County Special Districts dinner where they discussed
generating revenue on ground leasing cell towers; on February 22nd he attended the
Highland City Council meeting where he encouraged them to become a part of the
Recycled Water Center Ad-Hoc Committee.
Information Only.
GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORT
The General Manager/CEO reported on the following: he presented information to the
San Bernardino International Airport Authority regarding the recycled water project. He
stated that the District received the Government Finance Officers Association award for
its Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16. On Monday he will be meeting
with the North Fork Water Company’s attorney to finalize information that will be
discussed at March’s meeting. He stated that San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District rescheduled their March 1st meeting to certify the Environmental Impact Report
for the Sterling Natural Resource Center to March 15th; that a special meeting may be
held on March 16th. On Wednesday March 2nd he will be presenting a community
5
Minutes 2/24/2016 smg
conversation at Indian Springs High School. On March 8th – 9th the legislative committee
and staff will be attending ACWA’s Legislative Symposium and reception in Sacramento.
The General Manager/CEO stated that the internal process for potential candidates for
the Conservation Commission has been completed and will be brought to the Board next
month; and the District recently contracted with Docusign and the customer feedback
has been positive.
Information only.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT
No report at this time.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS
Director Smith thanked the Board and staff for all that they do and accommodating him
and his scheduling needs.
Vice Chairman Carrillo rented the facility for a mock trial event last Thursday and heard
many positive comments regarding the facility and thanked Cecilia Contreras, Senior
Administrative Assistant, for staffing the event.
Chairman Coats asked that the public support the Sterling Natural Resource Center.
Information only.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
_________________________
Ronald L. Coats, Chairman
_______________________
John J. Mura, Secretary
BOARD AGENDA STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #4.
Meeting Date: March 23, 2016
Discussion Item
To: Governing Board Members
From: General Manager/CEO
Subject: Consideration of the Sterling Natural Resource Center Environmental Impact Report; Approval of
the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project; and Facilitating Submittal of Financing Application
for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Board of Directors:
1.Adopt Resolution 2016.01 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Sterling Natural
Resource Center; and
2.Adopt Resolution 2016.02 adopting CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sterling Natural
Resource Center Project and approving the Sterling Natural Resource Center and Resolutions
2016.03, 2016.08, and 2016.09, which are requirements of the State Revolving Fund financing
application for the project.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
The Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) project involves construction of a wastewater treatment
plant and the beneficial reuse of the treated wastewater for regional water supply benefits. The SNRC
project required preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). A Draft EIR that analyzes the impacts of the project and proposes measures to
mitigate those impacts was circulated for public comment. The Final EIR consisting of the draft EIR,
oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to environmental issues raised in the
comments, and revisions, updates, and clarifications to the Draft EIR, was certified by the lead agency,
the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) on March 15, 2016.
In its role as a responsible agency under CEQA, to move forward with the SNRC project, the East
Valley Water District (EVWD) Board of Directors (Board) must take two separate actions. First, it must
certify that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR, which was completed in accordance with CEQA.
Second, relying on the certified EIR (both the Draft and the Final), the Board must make written
CEQA Findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (because there will be significant and
unavoidable impacts on the environment if the Board decides to proceed with SNRC), and then approve
the project. Approval of the project will commit EVWD to implementing the mitigation measures set
forth in the EIR and will include adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Along with
project approval, the Board must also adopt three resolutions required in connection with the application
of EVWD for State Revolving Fund financing for the project.
Project Background
The proposed project includes construction of the SNRC in the City of Highland to treat wastewater generated
within the EVWD service area. The EVWD service area is located entirely within the Valley District service
area. Currently, pursuant to an agreement, EVWD conveys that wastewater to the City of San Bernardino for
secondary treatment at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant, which in turn sends its treated wastewater
for tertiary treatment at the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction (RIX) facility and discharge to the Santa Ana River.
The SNRC would consist of a wastewater treatment plant and related administration facilities producing
tertiary-treated water for beneficial reuses that would include groundwater recharge. The SNRC is proposed to
be constructed on a 14-acre parcel of land, located at North Del Rosa Drive between East 5th Street and East
6th Street in the City of Highland. A conveyance system including a pumping station and pipeline would be
constructed to convey treated water from the SNRC to discharge locations within City Creek, East Twin Creek
Spreading Grounds, the Redlands Basins, or other potential recharge basins. Most of the wastewater reaching
the new treatment facility would be conveyed by gravity within the existing collection system. However, some
modifications would be necessary to convey the existing collection system flows to the new treatment plant.
The EIR identifies numerous potential adverse impacts to environmental resources and proposes measures to
mitigate those impacts. The EIR concludes that most of the potential impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures. There are a handful of exceptions:
construction emissions of NOx and the cumulative impact of the project’s NOx emissions, impacts to the
Santa Ana sucker – which is listed under the Endangered Species Act, construction noise impacts, and impacts
on growth would remain significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures.
Of these significant and unavoidable impacts, the impact to the Santa Ana sucker, which results from the fact
that the project will in effect divert water from the Santa Ana River, is the most notable. To address the impact,
a comprehensive mitigation strategy has been prepared that will address a variety of factors and habitat
conditions that negatively affect the Santa Ana sucker. This strategy will be implemented through either a
Habitat Conservation Plan that would involve numerous other partners, or a Habitat Monitoring and
Management Plan, which Valley District and EVWD would carry out. Both plans would involve similar
activities. While this mitigation plan will not render the impact to the sucker to less than significant levels, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is supportive of this approach, believes it will chart a course towards recovery
of the species, and hopes that this mitigation strategy will serve as a model for other water projects in the
region.
Because the SNRC Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts, in order to approve the Project the
Board must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth reasons for concluding that the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the project are acceptable in light of the project’s benefits.
CEQA Process
The Framework Agreement entered into between Valley District and EVWD, effective October 6, 2015,
designated Valley District as the lead agency for compliance with CEQA in this matter. A scoping period for the
SNRC project ran from October 16, 2015 through November 16, 2015. Public scoping meetings were held at
the EVWD and Valley District offices. Comments were received during the scoping period and are included in
the EIR as an appendix. The Draft EIR was made available to the public on December 17, 2015. The public
comment period on the Draft EIR ran from December 17, 2015 through February 1, 2016 and included public
presentations at the EVWD and Valley District offices. Approximately 23 agencies, organizations, and members
of the public submitted comments on the Draft EIR. Responses to those comments are included in the Final
EIR. The Final EIR was made available to commenters and the public on March 4, 2016. A public workshop
was held at Valley District on March 10, 2016, which EVWD attended, to provide an overview of the process
for certifying the EIR and approving the SNRC project.
Valley District certified the EIR and approved the SNRC project on March 15, 2016. The CEQA record of
proceedings (also called the “administrative record”) consists of all non-privileged documents relating to the
project in the files of the lead agency, Valley District, on this matter, including the Final EIR, and any document
that informed the preparation of the EIR or the Valley District decision on the SNRC Project. The record of
proceedings contains the evidence that supports the analysis and conclusions in the EIR and, accordingly, the
Valley District decisions to certify the EIR and approve the project. Any challenge to the EIR will be decided
based on the record of proceedings.
To fulfill its obligations as a responsible agency and to implement the SNRC project, the EVWD Board must
take two separate actions. First, it must certify that it has considered the EIR and that the EIR was completed
in accordance with CEQA. A resolution certifying the EIR has been prepared for the Board’s consideration
and is included in the agenda packet. Second, relying on the certified EIR (both the Draft and the Final), the
Board must adopt written CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (because there will be
significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment if the Board decides to proceed with SNRC), and then,
if it so chooses, approve the project and the three accompanying resolutions that facilitate the EVWD
application for State Revolving Fund financing for the project.
Proposed CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the Board’s
review and are included in the agenda packet. The Findings identify the project’s effects, including effects that
can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels and those that cannot be so mitigated and thus will be significant
and unavoidable effects of the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth the reasons for
determining that the significant and unavoidable effects of the project are acceptable in the light of the project’s
benefits. Approval of the project by the Board will commit both Valley District and EVWD to implementing
the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, many of which will require continuing actions in the future, and will
include adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A resolution adopting the Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) has been prepared for the Board’s consideration and is included in the agenda packet. The purpose
of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented.
If the EVWD Board certifies the EIR and approves the SNRC project, staff will file a CEQA Notice of
Determination (NOD). However, the filing of a CEQA NOD by Valley District, the lead agency, is the action
that triggers a 30-day period for filing a lawsuit to challenge the Valley District lead agency decision on the EIR.
Summary of Late Comments
While CEQA does not require a lead agency to respond to comments submitted outside the noticed comment
period (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(a)), Valley District included responses to several subsequently received
comments in the Final EIR, in an effort to ensure that all concerns regarding the project have been addressed.
In addition, Valley District received additional comments after publication of the Final EIR. Those comments
and responses to them are attached to this staff report to fully implement CEQA’s purpose of enabling
informed decision making by the EVWD Board.
Cost Estimate and SRF Financing Application for Proposed SNRC Project
Project costs are not a CEQA issue because CEQA is concerned only with the environmental impacts of a
project. However, the cost of the SNRC Project is a factor for the Board to consider in deciding whether to
approve the project. A cost summary is provided below. Information regarding project costs is also included
in the Update of the Recycled Water Feasibility Study 2015, which is Appendix J to the Final EIR.
The project estimates a long term savings of approximately $60 million dollars over 20 years if all flow is
treated by EVWD. Additionally, the projected new water supply created by the project is approximately 11,200
acre feet per year (at the ultimate flow of 10 mgd), for an annual value of $7.4 million dollars.
ESTIMATED COST
Construction $88,000,000
Equipment $10,000,000
Land Purchase $3,600,000
Site Preparation $1,000,000
Architectural/Engineering, Design and Planning:$11,500,000
Engineering and Administrative Costs During Construction:$1,320,000
Legal Fees $580,000
Other Construction $10,000,000
TOTAL $126,000,000
Valley District and EVWD have been pursuing state grant and loan funding to defray the capital costs of the
SNRC project. Based on recent discussions with State Water Resources Control Board staff, it appears that
there is a good chance – but certainly no guarantee – that all of the capital costs of the project could be met by
such state funding. Loan repayment and operational costs would be borne by EVWD’s ratepayers but, as
noted in the feasibility study, the costs to those ratepayers would likely be less than at present. In anticipation
of notification from the State Water Resources Control Board that the SNRC project will be declared eligible
for State Revolving Fund financing, staff continues to work on a checklist of reports, documents,
certifications, and projections that will be required before a final funding agreement with the State can be
executed.
Among the required items for State Revolving Fund financing are Board actions, by way of Resolution,
declaring EVWD’s intentions, authorizations, and designations with respect to administration of State
agreements related to the Sterling Natural Resource Center. The attached Resolutions were drafted from
templates provided with the SRF financing application package and will accomplish the required objectives
stated above. Briefly:
Resolution 2016.03 is a Reimbursement Resolution which will establish a date from which the
District can incur Project costs that can then be reimbursed from the proceeds of a financing
agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board.
Resolution 2016.08 is an Authorizing Resolution designating the General Manager / CEO as
authorized representative to sign a financing agreement, required certifications and commitments,
and designating the Engineering Manager as authorized representative to sign forms related to
ongoing project expenditures.
Resolution 2016.09 is a pledge by the District of net wastewater revenues for the repayment of
loans received from the State, and a pledge to ensure established wastewater rates are sufficient
to make debt service payments.
AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS:
Ideals and Endeavor I - Encourage Innovative Investments To Promote Sustainable Benefits
(B) - Manage and identify methods to conserve natural resources
(E) - Actively seek alternative supply resources
Ideals and Endeavor IV - Fully Understand Challenges To Cultivate Effective Solutions
(C) - Pursue alternative funding sources
REVIEW BY OTHERS:
This agenda item has been reviewed by the District's Legal Counsel, the SNRC Special Counsel and Project
Management.
FISCAL IMPACT :
There is no fiscal impact associated with the actions of the Board to certify the Environmental Impact Report
for the Sterling Natural Resource Center, to adopt CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sterling Natural Resource Center
project, to approve the Sterling Natural Resource Center, and to submit mandatory elements of a financing
application to the State Revolving Fund. Fiscal impacts associated with the actual implementation of the
Sterling Natural Resource Center project are beyond the scope of these required prior actions.
Respectfully submitted:
John Mura
General Manager / CEO
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
1.Comments Received after Final EIR Release Backup Material
2.Response to Comments Received after Final EIR
Release Backup Material
3.Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Backup Material
4.Resolution 2016.01 – Certifying the EIR for the SNRC
Project Resolution Letter
5.Resolution 2016.02 – Approving the SNRC Project Resolution Letter
-- Exhibit 1: Findings Exhibit
-- Exhibit 2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit
-- Exhibit 3: EVWD Notice of Determination Exhibit
6.Resolution 2016.03 – Reimbursement Resolution Resolution Letter
7.Resolution 2016.08 – Authorizing Resolution Resolution Letter
8.Resolution 2016.09 – Pledge of Revenues Resolution Letter
1
Somach Simmons & Dunn
Draft Comments of
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project &
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 9, 2016
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) has
conducted an initial review of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s
(Valley District) responses to SBMWD’s February 1, 2016 comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC or
Project). While many of the responses addressed questions and concerns identified by
the SMBWD, a number of the responses on key issues fail to provide sufficient
information to resolve the SMBWD’s concerns about the SNRC’s environmental
impacts. SBMWD provides the following draft comments for consideration by Valley
District; the SBMWD will provide final comments on the FEIR prior to its consideration
by the Valley District Board of Directors.
Response to Comment SBMWD-7:
The comment identifies questions about impacts from proposed supplemental
groundwater wells. The FEIR states the “DEIR concludes that the reduction in
groundwater levels would be offset by the discharge in the [Santa Ana River], which
exhibits high infiltration rates below the RIX discharge.” The proposed supplemental
wells are located up gradient of the RIX and the Santa Ana River, so the water table in
the area of the wells is not recharged by RIX or the river. In fact, when considered along
with extraction at the RIX facility wells, the southernmost proposed well (or two) could
actually have a cumulative impact, further lowering groundwater levels.
Response to Comment SBMWD-8:
The response states that the DEIR explains that if Valley District cannot use SBMWD’s
Santa Ana River pipeline, the Project could be implemented without this discharge
option, “recognizing that no diversion of existing wastewater flow to RIX would be
allowable until either the HCP or the HMMP were approved by the USFWS under the
ESA.” SBMWD cannot identify any discussion in the DEIR that explains how the
Project would operate if the Santa Ana River pipeline were not available. The relevant
sections of the DEIR Project Description appear to be at pp. 2-6, 2-24 and 2-27. There is
no acknowledgement of an alternative discharge option, and there does not appear to be
any discussion of how elimination of the Santa Ana River discharge option would affect
the scope of the project’s potential impacts (from construction, or to river and aquatic
resources) that would occur if the option were not implemented. If the Santa Ana River
discharge option were not available, Santa Ana River flows would be further reduced.
Comment Letter SBMWD 2
Draft Comments of City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Sterling Natural Resource Center Final Environmental Impact Report
2
The FEIR should disclose what assumptions were made in the DEIR impact analysis
regarding the volume of tertiary treated effluent that would be discharged to the river, via
the Santa Ana River pipeline, and how the nature and intensity of Project impacts would
change if this element of the Project were not implemented.
Response to Comment SBMWD-12:
The response fails to address the primary issue raised in the comment regarding the
Project’s potential to increase TDS concentrations in groundwater. The response does not
resolve issues raised in the comment about specific TDS levels in source water and
influent in relation to groundwater quality objectives. The response provides no evidence
or analysis to explain how the Project, in light of the facts presented by SBMWD about
TDS levels in source water and influent, and the fact that the Project would not remove
TDS, would meet TDS objectives.
The response merely states that meeting TDS objectives would be a requirement of the
waste discharge permit from RWQCB that would include an anti-degradation analysis.
However, as noted in SBMWD’s comment 14, an anti-degradation analysis allows for the
RWQCB to authorize degradation when deemed consistent with maximum benefit to
state, a calculus that includes a weighing of social and economic factors and does not
look purely at environmental impacts, as required by CEQA.
Response to Comment SBMWD-13
The response that the Project will be required through permit conditions to comply with
Basin Plan standards and ensure that no local drinking water wells are adversely affected
does not address the concern identified in the comment about the potential for TDS levels
to compound in the groundwater. Simply meeting a water quality objective does not
mean the Project would not have the potential to result in a significant impact to
groundwater, if concentrations of TDS increase over time and cause degradation. The
portion of the response that addresses issues in comment SBMWD-14 regarding
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 is inadequate for the reasons stated below regarding
response to comment SBMWD-15.
Response to Comment SBMWD-14
The response states that anti-degradation modeling demonstrates that Project discharges
can be “assimilated into” the Bunker Hill sub basins. The specific evidence supporting
this statement should be provided for evaluation, including model results, along with a
description of model inputs and methodology. Moreover, it is not clear what is meant by
the statement that modeling demonstrates that discharges can be “assimilated” into the
sub basins. How does the term “assimilate” correspond to the CEQA’s requirement that
the project not substantially degrade groundwater? Stating that the Project discharges can
be “assimilated” provides no evidence regarding the degree of change to groundwater
TDS levels that will result, and thus there is no evidence to support a determination that
the Project will not result in a substantial adverse change to groundwater quality.
Comment Letter SBMWD 2
Draft Comments of City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Sterling Natural Resource Center Final Environmental Impact Report
3
Response to Comment SBMWD-15:
The response does not address the issue raised in the comment: that the EIR lacks
information regarding how the proposed mitigation would reduce adverse impacts to
groundwater that might be identified as a result of recharging groundwater with recycled
water that has TDS levels that exceed water quality objectives. The FEIR relies on
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 and a monitoring network to “evaluate potential impacts
and implement corrective measures, if required.” The identified corrective measures
include “modification of the treatment of the replenishment water.” However, no
information is provided regarding how treatment would be modified. Would new
facilities be required, or new treatment processes that have the potential to result in new
or substantially more severe environmental impacts? The response states “The Mitigation
measure cannot predetermine additional specific modifications since those would depend
on and correct the water quality impairment identified during monitoring.” Without any
information about the type of treatment modifications, there is no basis for determining
whether the proposed mitigation is feasible, or whether it has the potential to result in
significant impacts itself.
Response to Comment SBMWD-16:
The response addresses only the potential for impacts to groundwater levels or the aquifer
from use of the Rialto Wells. The response does not address the portion of the comment
that raises a concern about the potential surface water quality impacts from pumping
groundwater from the Rialto Wells and discharging it to the Rialto Channel. Neither the
Draft EIR nor the Final EIR provide any information about the expected quality of the
groundwater from these wells, or the volume to be pumped in relation to surface flows,
and thus there is no evidence regarding potential adverse effects to beneficial uses,
including Santa Ana suckers, from introduction of this groundwater. Mitigation Measure
HYDRO-2 does not apply to these wells, and thus there is no mechanism for evaluating,
monitoring or mitigating potential water quality impacts from the wells.
Response to Comment SBMWD-21:
The response does not explain why mitigation under the Reduced Discharge Alternative
would be proportionately less than mitigation under the proposed project, or why it would
be infeasible for a reduced discharge project to provide proportionate mitigation.
Nowhere in the description of this alternative in the DEIR is it stated that mitigation
measures would be reduced with this alternative. On page 6-22, the description of this
alternative states in total: “The Reduced Diversion Alternative would construct the
SNRC, collection system modifications, and treated water conveyance system, along with
the SAR Pipeline rehabilitation to act as a casing for the 24 inches diameter pipeline and
supplemental water well modifications, similar to the proposed project, but would return
3 MGD at all times to the RIX discharge through the Santa Ana River pipeline. The
treatment facility would have the same 10 MGD capacity, but would produce 3 MGD
Comment Letter SBMWD 2
Draft Comments of City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Sterling Natural Resource Center Final Environmental Impact Report
4
less recycled water for groundwater replenishment.” On the same page, under Biological
Resources, impacts are characterized as being less and there is no discussion of reduced
mitigation providing overall reduced environmental benefit. Rather, under Hydrology,
for example, it is stated this alternative would “require the same mitigation measures
compared with the proposed project. Since flows would be greater, the impact of the
alternative would be less than the proposed project.”
The FEIR’s justification for concluding that Alternative 5 is not environmentally superior
is stated as follows: “Since Alternative 5 would reduce flow in the Santa Ana River less
than the proposed project, the proposed impact compensation measures would be reduced
as well. The habitat management measures identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 that
would enhance SAR aquatic habitat compared to existing conditions would be less robust
with less committed funding from a reliable source.” However, there is nothing in the
description of this alternative that would justify the statement that habitat enhancement
resulting from the proposed project and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would exceed the
scope of adverse impacts, or that it would be proportionately higher than what would
occur, relative to impacts, than under Alternative 5. Thus there is no evidence to support
the FEIR’s conclusion that “The habitat management measures identified in Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 that would enhance SAR aquatic habitat compared to existing conditions
would be less robust with less committed funding from a reliable source.”
The requirement to analyze and identify an environmentally superior alternative focuses
on the alternatives’ ability to reduce one or more of the project’s significant impacts. It is
distinct from the lead agency’s ultimate decision regarding the project (or alternative) to
approve. The ability of an alternative to meet Project objectives is relevant to the
District’s ultimate decision whether to adopt that alternative, but it is not relevant to the
determination whether that alternative is environmentally superior among the Project and
other alternatives. The Reduced Discharge Alternative has lesser environmental impacts
than the Project, as identified in FEIR Table 6-2. Because the only evidence is that
impacts would be less under Alternative 5, it is was not appropriate for the EIR to
conclude that the Project is the environmentally superior alternative.
Comment Letter SBMWD 2
Comment Letter SBCDPW 2
Comment Letter SBCDPW 2 2
Comment Letter SBCDPW 2 2
Subject: FW: Anthony Serrano sent you a video: "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Special
Districts (HBO)"
From: Anthony Serrano [mailto:anthonvaserrano@~mail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:04 AM
To: Anthony Serrano via YouTube <noreply@youtube.com>; Heather Dyer <heatherd@sbvmwd.com>; Lillian Hernandez
<Iiilianh@sbvmwd.com>
Cc: Kim Stater <kstater@citvofhi~hland.org>; Larry Mainez <ImainezCa@citvofhighland.or~>; Brandy Littleton
<blittleton@cityofhi~hland.or~>; Charles Roberts <editor@hi~hlandnews.net>; Jim Harris <Lharris@sbdairport.com>;
kmcdonald@lafco.sbcountv.~ov; Socorro Pantaleon <socorro.pantaleon@asm.ca.~ov>; David Matza
<david.matza@sen.ca.~ov>; Covey, Gayle <~avle.covev@bos.sbcountv.~ov>; philip.paule@bos.sbcountv.~ov
Subject: Re: Anthony Serrano sent you a video: "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Special Districts (HBO)"
3-7-2016: Ms. Heather Dyer -can you forward this link for the last night's TV episode "Last Week Tonight
John Oliver" titled: "Special Districts" because it supports my issue of "costs" in connection with your
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center (waste water treatment
facility). The problem with the report it does not include any COSTS for the "cost/benefit scenario for
mitigation alternatives."
~. In my response letter to your consultant Tom Barnes at EAS dated February 1, 2016
stated: "Costs - my original questions submitted dated November 15, 201.5, question #22
asked for costs. Your report does not include any costs for the "cost/benefit scenarios for the
mitigation of alternatives?" Public Resources Code 21001. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE
INTENT: The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to: "(g)
Require governmental agencies at all teve/s to consider quatifative factors as we// as
economic and technical factors and /ong-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-
term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the
environment." If your report does not include any cost information will the Lead Agency be
proving the cost information pursuant to state law?"
2. As you know, we have three (3) other pending EIR/EIS projects in the immediate area: a)
San Bernardina Valley Conservation District's "Wash Plan" that has been ongoing since year
2004 and does not include costs, b) City of Highland proposed "Harmony Project" that wants
to run a sewer line for the proposed 3,600 new homes from the Mill Creek area, across the
Santa Ana Wash and into the proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center but refuse to
identify the costs etc., and c) San Bernardino International Airport is planning to update a
specific plan that will include and area from Alabama Street to Victoria Avenue including the
wash area. You would think that we could have a better coordination effort to get ONE
CONSULTANT to do the entire project, save tax payer dollars, and get the job done on-time!
3. We all understand that water is becoming more expensive but none of these EIR's
include any identified/potential cost savings by consolidation/elimination of water agencies
executive staffs, board members, and other collateral functions under the san Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District {SBVMWD). The Governor signed SB88 last year to
Comment Letter SERRANO 3 Email
consolidate water agencies! I have a plan and can share it with you on Thursday. The
private sector consolidates every day via mergers/buyouts......water agencies do not want to
take advantage of technology to mitigate potential rate payer increases??????
am sending this v9ia e-mail and will call you later to confirm receipt.
Thank you.
Anthony Serrano, Local Tax Payer
(909) 496-4733 Cell
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Anthony Serrano via YouTube <noreply(a~youtube.com> wrote:
~~~~~ Anthony Serrano has shared a video with you on
r ~' YouTube
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Special
Comment Letter SERRANO 3 Email
Districts (HBO)
by LastWeekTonight
Special districts spend more public money than all city
governments combined. ThaYs odd considering most of us don't
know they exist.
Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more
{ almost news as it almost happens:
Help center ~ Report spam
~~2~16 YcuT~~~be LLC 9011 CI-ic~ry Hv~ .San Bruno. C!~ 94466
Comment Letter SERRANO 3 Email
Materials submitted
with Anthony
Serrano March 10
Oral Comments
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 3
Comment Letter SBMWD 4
Comment Letter SBMWD 4
Comment Letter SBMWD 4
Comment Letter SERRANO 4 Email
Comment Letter SERRANO 4 EMAIL
Comment Letter SERRANO 4 Email
Comment Letter SERRANO 4 Email
Comment Letter SERRANO 4 Email
BLUM|COLLINS LLP
Aon Center
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 4880
Los Angeles, California
90017
213.572.0400 phone
213.572.0401 fax
March 14, 2016
Valley District
c/o Tom Barnes
Environmental Science Associates
626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tbarnes@esassoc.com
c/o Heather Dyer
heatherd@sbvmwd.com
380 East Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, CA 92408
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
380 East Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Fax: (909) 387-9247
Via Email, Facsimile & U.S. Mail
Re: Additional Comments on Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
Dear Mr. Barnes, Ms. Dyer, and Valley District:
This letter is to serve you with additional comments on behalf of the SoCal
Environmental Justice Alliance (“SEJA”) regarding the planned Sterling Natural
Resource Center (“SNRC”) prior to Valley District’s meeting of the Board of Directors
regarding the potential approval of this Project. We have not had a full opportunity to
review the FEIR. We did have the following additional comments, however:
1.Neither the DEIR nor the FEIR indicates when mitigation for temporary impacts
due to construction should occur. This mitigation should occur, obviously, before
the construction.
2. CDFW referred to the USFWS’s Rule listing the Santa Ana Sucker. A copy of
that Final Rule is attached hereto and should be included in the administrative
record for this Project.
Thank you.
Comment Letter SEJA 2
Valley District c/o Tom Barnes, ESA, Heather Dyer, and Via Facsimile
March 14, 2016
Page 2
Sincerely,
Craig M. Collins
Attachment A: USFWS Final Rule
Comment Letter SEJA 2
19686 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
to the FCC Form 477, for each state in
which they exceed this threshold.
(b) Respondents identified in
paragraph (a) of this section shall file
the FCC Form 477 on diskette or via e-
mail, as directed in the instructions to
the FCC Form 477. Upon submission of
each report, an original certification
letter (as contained in the instructions to
FCC Form 477) signed by the
responsible official shall be mailed to
the Commission.
(c) Respondents may make requests
for Commission non-disclosure of
provider-specific data contained in the
Form 477 under §0.459 of this chapter
by so indicating on the Form 477 at the
time that the subject data are submitted.
The Commission shall make all
decisions regarding non-disclosure of
provider-specific information, except
that the Chief of the Common Carrier
Bureau may release provider-specific
information to a state commission,
provided that the state commission has
protections in place that would
preclude disclosure of any confidential
information.
(d) Respondents identified in
paragraph (b) of this section shall file a
revised version of FCC Form 477 if and
when they discover a significant error in
their filed FCC Form 477. For counts, a
difference amounting to 5 percent of the
filed number is considered significant.
For percentages, a difference of 5
percentage points is considered
significant.
(e) Failure to file FCC Form 477 in
accordance with the Commission’s rules
and the instructions to Form 477 may
lead to enforcement action pursuant to
the Act and any other applicable law.
[FR Doc. 00–9187 Filed 4–11–00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AF34
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Status for the
Santa Ana Sucker
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), determine threatened
status according to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
for the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus
santaanae). The species is threatened by
potential habitat destruction, natural
and human-induced changes in
streamflows, urban development and
related land-use practices, intensive
recreation, introduction of nonnative
competitors and predators, and
demographics associated with small
populations. The final rule invokes the
Federal protection afforded by the Act
for the Santa Ana sucker within the Los
Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana
River drainages.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
May 12, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this
rule is available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen
W. Knowles, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (telephone 760–431–9440;
facsimile 760–431–9624).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus
santaanae) is a recognized species and
member of the sucker family
(Catostomidae) (Robbins et al. 1991).
The Santa Ana sucker was originally
described as Pantosteus santa-anae by
Snyder (1908). The genus Pantosteus
was reduced to a subgenus of
Catostomus, and the hyphen was
omitted from the specific name in a
subsequent revision of the nomenclature
(Smith 1966). Smith and Koehn (1971)
and Smith (1992) continued to
recognize Pantosteus as a subgenus,
although several authors have followed
earlier usage (Miller 1959) in
recognizing Pantosteus as a genus
related to Catostomus (Minckley 1973;
Minckley et al. 1986).
Moyle (1976a) described the Santa
Ana sucker as being less than 16
centimeters (cm) (6.3 inches (in.)) in
length. The species is silvery below and
darker along the back, with irregular
blotches and pigmented membranes
connecting the rays of the tail (Moyle
1976a).
The Santa Ana sucker inhabits
streams that are generally small and
shallow, with currents ranging from
swift (in canyons) to sluggish (in the
bottomlands). All the streams are
subject to periodic severe flooding
(Moyle 1976a). Santa Ana suckers
appear to be most abundant where the
water is cool (less than 22° Celsius (72°
Fahrenheit)), unpolluted, and clear,
although they can tolerate and survive
in seasonally turbid water (Moyle
1976a; Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992).
Santa Ana suckers feed mostly on algae,
diatoms, and detritus scraped from
rocks and other hard substrates, with
aquatic insects making up a very small
component of their diet. Larger fish
generally feed more on insects than do
smaller fish (Greenfield et al. 1970;
Moyle 1976a).
Santa Ana suckers generally reach
sexual maturity in just over 1 year and
typically do not live more than 3 years
(Greenfield et al. 1970). Spawning
generally occurs from early April to
early July, with a peak in spawning
activity occurring in late May and June
(Greenfield et al. 1970; Moyle 1976a).
The spawning period may be variable
and protracted, however. Recent field
surveys on the East Fork of the San
Gabriel River found evidence of an
extended spawning period. These
surveys found small juveniles (<30
millimeters (mm) standard length (<1.2
in.)) in December (1998) and March
(1999) at the San Gabriel River site (U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) data, in litt.
1999). This data indicates that spawning
may be very protracted in this stream,
and begin as early as November. The
fecundity of the Santa Ana sucker
appears to be exceptionally high for a
small sucker species (Moyle 1976a).
Total fecundity of six females, ranging
in size from 78 mm (3.1 in.) to 158 mm
(6.2 in.), ranged from 4,423 to 16,151
eggs (Greenfield et al. 1970). The
combination of early sexual maturity, a
protracted spawning period, and high
fecundity should allow the Santa Ana
sucker to quickly repopulate streams
following periodic flood events that
could decimate populations (Moyle
1976a).
Historically, the Santa Ana sucker
appeared to be native to the rivers and
larger streams of the Los Angeles
Basin—the Los Angeles, San Gabriel,
and Santa Ana River drainage systems
in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and
San Bernardino Counties (Smith 1966).
Although historic records are scarce,
Santa Ana suckers presumably ranged
from near the Pacific Ocean to the
uplands of the Los Angeles and San
Gabriel River systems, and to at least
where Pump House #1 is now located
(near the San Bernardino National
Forest boundary) in the Santa Ana River
(Swift et al. 1993; Camm Swift,
Icthyologist Consultant, pers. comm.
1996). Although the Santa Ana sucker
was described as common in the 1970s
(Moyle 1976a), the species has
experienced declines throughout most
of its range (Moyle et al. 1995; Swift et
al. 1993). The species is now restricted
to three noncontiguous populations:
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19687Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
lower Big Tujunga Creek (Los Angeles
River drainage); the East, West, and
North Forks of the San Gabriel River
(San Gabriel River drainage); and the
lower and middle Santa Ana River
(Santa Ana River drainage) (Moyle et al.
1995; Swift et al. 1993). A population
also occurs in portions of the Santa
Clara River drainage system in Ventura
and Los Angeles Counties. The Santa
Clara population is presumed to be an
introduced population, although this
presumption is based on the absence of
the species from early collections, and
not on any documented records of
introduction (Hubbs et al. 1943; Miller
1968; Moyle 1976a; Bell 1978). The
Santa Clara River population was not
included in the proposal to list the
Santa Ana sucker as threatened because
of its presumed introduced status (see
the proposed rule, 64 FR 3915, for
further details on this population). In
this document, we define the native
range of the Santa Ana sucker, as
outlined in the proposed rule, to
include populations in the Los Angeles
River, San Gabriel River, and Santa Ana
River drainage systems.
Los Angeles River System
Although historically present, the
species may now be extirpated from the
Los Angeles River (Swift et al. 1993).
Santa Ana suckers are still found in
portions of Big Tujunga Creek (a
tributary of the Los Angeles River)
between Big Tujunga Dam and Hansen
Dam. Surveys downstream of the Big
Tujunga Dam found the species to be
present but rare (fewer than 20
individuals collected at each site) just
below the dam, as well as in the
vicinities of Delta Flat and Wildwood.
The species was found to be abundant
(an estimated 200 individuals collected)
near Stoneyvale (Mike Wickman,
Angeles National Forest, in litt. 1996).
Several thousand Santa Ana suckers
were observed in a visual survey of Big
Tujunga Creek in small sections from
the confluence of Little Tujunga Creek
to the Foothill Boulevard bridge in May
1999 (C. Swift, pers. com. 1999). Santa
Ana suckers were also common in
visual surveys of Big Tujunga Creek
from Foothill Boulevard to the
intersection of Oro Vista and Mt.
Gleason Avenues in May 1999 (Glen
Knowles, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, in litt. 1999a); however, by
October 1999, this reach had dried up
entirely. Santa Ana suckers were
abundant in October 1999 in the
approximately 1-mile-long stretch of
flowing waters of Big Tujunga and
Haines Canyon Creeks between the 210
Freeway and Hansen Dam, as were two
other rare native fish species, arroyo
chub (Gila orcutti) and Santa Ana
speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus
ssp.). Santa Ana suckers could not be
found in other parts of the Big Tujunga
Creek in October 1999, which were dry
except for a few isolated shallow pools
(G. Knowles, in litt. 1999a). In late
summer and autumn of dry years, Big
Tujunga Creek becomes a dry wash for
much of its length. During these times,
Santa Ana suckers may be restricted to
about 1 mile of stream in the Los
Angeles River Basin. We estimate that
the Santa Ana sucker has lost
approximately 80 percent of its historic
native range in the Los Angeles River
Basin. The portions of Big Tujunga
Creek currently occupied by the Santa
Ana sucker constitute approximately 25
percent of the total remaining native
range of the species. Approximately 60
percent of the current range of the Santa
Ana sucker in the Los Angeles River
Basin occurs on private lands. The
remaining 40 percent of the range in the
Los Angeles River Basin occurs on
Angeles National Forest lands managed
by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
San Gabriel River System
Santa Ana suckers were common in
the San Gabriel River below Morris
Dam, near Fish Canyon, until the mid-
1970s (C. Swift, in litt. 1999a). However,
no suckers were found in surveys
conducted below Morris Dam in 1995
(Dr. Tom Haglund, University of
California, Los Angeles, in litt. 1996).
Santa Ana suckers were also absent
from 1998 surveys in the mainstem San
Gabriel River at Browns Gulch, below
Morris Dam, and at Rainbow Ranch
(Chambers Group 1999). Santa Ana
suckers were present in 1998 Chamber
Group surveys of the West Fork of the
San Gabriel River (Chambers Group
1999); however, surveys conducted by
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) in 1998 and 1999 failed to locate
suckers in the West Fork (Ray Ally,
CDFG, in litt. 1999; Robert C. Hight,
CDFG, in litt. 1999). However, CDFG did
find Santa Ana suckers in Bear Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork San Gabriel
River, in June 1999 (R. Ally, CDFG, in
litt. 1999). Quarterly surveys indicated
suckers were common in the East Fork
of the San Gabriel River throughout
1999 (Mike Saiki, USGS Biological
Resources Division (BRD), pers. comm.
1999). Thus, the Santa Ana sucker now
appears extant only upstream of the
confluence of the East, West, and North
Forks of the San Gabriel River.
Furthermore, the population of Santa
Ana suckers in the North Fork is small,
and the population in the West Fork
appears to be declining. The portions of
the San Gabriel River occupied by the
Santa Ana sucker constitute
approximately 15 percent of the total
remaining native range of the species.
However, data gathered during sampling
indicates that the San Gabriel River may
contain the most individuals of any
remaining population (R. Ally, in litt.
1996; Mike Guisti, CDFG, in litt. 1996;
M. Wickman, in litt, 1996; Juan
Hernandez, CDFG, in litt. 1997; M.
Saiki, pers. com. 1999). We estimate that
the Santa Ana sucker has lost
approximately 75 percent of its native
range in the San Gabriel River.
Approximately 15 percent of the current
range of the Santa Ana sucker in the San
Gabriel River Basin occurs on private
lands. The remaining 85 percent of the
range in the San Gabriel River Basin
occurs in the Angeles National Forest.
Even with the substantial decrease in
the sucker’s range in the San Gabriel
River drainage system, Moyle and
Yoshiyama (1992) considered this
population of Santa Ana suckers to be
the only viable population within the
species’ native range.
Santa Ana River System
In 1986 and 1987, several hundred
Santa Ana suckers were observed in the
Santa Ana River downstream of Prado
Dam (C. Swift, pers. comm. 1996). By
1996, a general fish survey below Prado
Dam yielded only 5 suckers from a total
of 271 fishes captured (M. Guisti, CDFG,
in litt. 1996). In April 1987, only five
suckers were found during a sampling
effort above the Prado Dam from the
City of Norco to about 5 kilometers (km)
(3.1 miles (mi)) upstream. In addition to
fish being scarce above the dam, no
small individuals were observed,
indicating the possibility of little or no
reproduction occurring in the area
(Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992). In 1991,
sampling indicated that, although
fishery habitat in the Santa Ana River
was primarily fair to poor, Santa Ana
suckers were abundant between Norco
and Riverside (Chadwick and Associates
1992). Additionally, evidence suggested
Santa Ana suckers were using
tributaries, including Tequesquite
Arroyo, Sunnyslope Channel, and Anza
Park Drain, for spawning and nurseries
(Chadwick and Associates 1996).
Seventy-six Santa Ana suckers were
taken in three collections about 2.0 km
(1.2 mi) below Hamner Avenue,
Anaheim County, in the summer of
1997. An extensive survey of the Santa
Ana River between Weir Canyon Road
and Hamner Avenue, in Anaheim
County, during the summer of 1998
yielded 42 Santa Ana suckers. All were
juveniles less than 70 mm (2.8 in.) long
(C. Swift, in litt, 1998). However,
recently, in surveys between September
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19688 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
and November 1999, seven adult
suckers were captured near River Road,
Riverside—three in the main-stem Santa
Ana River, and four in the diversion
channel that diverts most of the river’s
flow into the Prado Wetlands (C. Swift,
in litt. 1999). Snorkel surveys of the
Santa Ana River between Mission
Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in
Riverside in November 1999 found
several pockets of tens to hundreds of
Santa Ana suckers, usually in the
deepest areas of the stream (C. Swift,
pers. comm. 1999). Although Chadwick
and Associates (1991) collected one
Santa Ana sucker in this area near
Mission Boulevard in March 1991, they
stated that this reach probably would
not support viable populations of fishes
due to elevated levels of ‘‘chlorine and
unionized ammonia’’ in this reach and
unsuitable breeding substrates. Recent
surveys in September and December
1999 in the Metropolitan Water District
crossing near the Van Buren Avenue
bridge in Riverside captured 48 and 16
suckers, respectively, although these
individuals appeared to be in poorer
body condition than those in the San
Gabriel River (Barbara Martin, USGS,
BRD, pers. comm. 1999). Extensive
surveys of the Santa Ana River at
Imperial Highway in December 1998
and March, June, September, and
December 1999 failed to record any
Santa Ana suckers (B. Martin, pers.
comm. 1999).
Chadwick and Associates (1996)
noted that length-frequency analysis
indicates Santa Ana suckers are
naturally reproducing in the Santa Ana
River system. However, they asserted
that Santa Ana sucker population
decreases, as evidenced by 1996
surveys, were due to high flows in the
basin between 1991 and 1996 (M.
Guisti, in litt., 1996). T. Haglund (in litt.
1996) contended that a large number of
suckers reported in tributaries are
juveniles and may be the progeny of
very few adults. The presence of
juveniles in surveys at the Metropolitan
Water District Crossing, in March, June,
and September 1999, represent positive
evidence of recruitment, despite the
apparent lack of suitable spawning
habitat at that site (M. Saiki, pers.
comm. 1999).
Santa Ana suckers occur in the lower
portions of the Santa Ana River, with
current survey records from the vicinity
of Weir Canyon Road in Anaheim to
Riverside Avenue in Riverside, but are
now apparently absent from the upper
reach of the river in the San Bernardino
Mountains (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992;
Swift et al. 1993). We estimate that the
Santa Ana sucker has lost
approximately 70 percent of its native
range in the Santa Ana River. The
portions of the Santa Ana River
occupied by the Santa Ana sucker
constitute approximately 60 percent of
the total remaining native range of the
species. Approximately 75 percent of
the range of the species in the Santa Ana
River Basin occurs on private lands. The
balance is within State, county, city,
and regional park lands, with a small
portion, 3 percent, on military lands.
In summary, the Santa Ana sucker has
declined throughout significant portions
of its range. The species has lost
approximately 75 percent of its native
range. Recent population densities range
from approximately 246 fish in 2.9 km
(1.8 mi) on the East Fork of the San
Gabriel River (J. Hernandez, in litt.
1997) to 16 fish in 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of
the Santa Ana River in December 1999
(USGS Survey Data, in litt. 1999). This
overall reduction in range, and the more
localized reductions in numbers, are
particularly surprising given the high
fecundity and apparent broad habitat
tolerances of the species. Urbanization,
water diversions, dams, introduced
competitors and/or predators, and other
human-caused disturbances likely are
playing a role in the decline of the
species. These factors have also been
implicated in the decline of other
western suckers (Minckley et al. 1991;
Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).
The decline of the Santa Ana sucker
is also part of a greater overall decline
of freshwater fishes in Southern
California. The Los Angeles Basin was
or is home to at least seven native
species of freshwater fishes that have
been declining or have been extirpated
since the 1930s (Swift et al. 1993). Four
of these species, the steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), the Pacific
lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), the
Pacific brook lamprey (Lampetra cf.
pacifica), and the unarmored three-
spined stickleback (Gasterosteus
aculeatus williamsoni), have been
extirpated from the Los Angeles Basin
since the 1950s. Two others, the Santa
Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys
osculus), and the arroyo chub (Gila
orcutti), have become rare in the Los
Angeles Basin (Swift et al. 1993).
Previous Federal Action
On September 6, 1994, we received a
petition under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) to list the Santa Ana sucker
(Catostomus santaanae), Santa Ana
speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus),
and Shay Creek threespine stickleback
(Gasterosteus aculeatus) as endangered
species. The petition was submitted by
the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,
Inc., on behalf of seven groups
including the California-Nevada Chapter
of the American Fisheries Society, The
Nature School, California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance, Friends of the
River, Izaak Walton League of America,
California Trout, and Trout Unlimited.
We deferred processing this petition
because of other higher priority listing
actions and severe funding constraints
imposed by a number of continuing
resolutions between November 1995
and April 1996.
On July 9, 1996, we published a 90-
day petition finding (61 FR 36021) that
substantial information had been
presented indicating listing may be
warranted for the Santa Ana sucker. On
November 26, 1996, we published a
notice initiating a status review for the
Santa Ana sucker (61 FR 60073). On
April 3, 1997, we published a 12-month
finding (62 FR 15872) that listing the
Santa Ana sucker was warranted, but
precluded by higher listing priorities.
On January 26, 1999, we proposed
threatened status for the Santa Ana
sucker within its native historic range of
the Los Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa
Ana River Systems (64 FR 3915). After
the close of the comment period, we
received seven requests to reopen the
comment period. These requests asked
us to consider new information gained
from ongoing studies on the species,
and to consider the use of a special rule
under section 4(d) of the Act to
implement a long-term conservation
program for the species in the Santa Ana
River. On December 16, 1999, we
reopened the comment period to satisfy
the public notice requirements of the
Act and our regulations (50 CFR
424.16(c)(vi)), and to consider new
scientific information (64 FR 70209).
The processing of this final rule
conforms with our Final Listing Priority
Guidance published in the Federal
Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR
57114). The guidance clarifies the order
in which we will process rulemakings.
Highest priority is processing
emergency listing rules for any species
determined to face a significant and
imminent risk to its well-being (Priority
1). Second priority (Priority 2) is
processing final determinations on
proposed additions to the lists of
endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants. Third priority (Priority 3) is
processing new proposals to add species
to the lists. The processing of
administrative petition findings
(petitions filed under section 4 of the
Act) is the fourth priority (Priority 4).
The processing of this final rule is a
Priority 2 action.
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19689Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the January 26, 1999, proposed rule
(64 FR 3915), we requested interested
parties to submit factual reports or
information that might contribute to
development of a final rule. The 60-day
comment period closed on March 29,
1999. We contacted appropriate Federal
and State agencies, county and city
governments, scientific organizations,
and other interested parties. We
reopened the comment period on
December 16, 1999, to satisfy the public
notice requirements of the Act and to
consider new scientific information.
The reopened comment period closed
on January 3, 2000. We published
public notices of the proposed rule in
the Los Angeles Times, the Orange
County Register, and the Riverside Press
Enterprise on December 17, 1999, which
invited general public comment. We did
not receive any requests for a public
hearing.
During the public comment periods,
we received written comments from 45
individuals, organizations, and State
and local agencies. Of the comments
received, 32 were in support of listing,
3 were opposed, and 10 were neutral.
Some commenters submitted updated
status information on the Santa Ana
sucker and new information on possible
threats to the species. This information
has been incorporated in the
‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species’’ sections. We
address all other comments received
during the comment periods in the
following summary of issues. Comments
of a similar nature are grouped into a
single issue.
Issue 1: Several commenters felt that
the Santa Ana sucker should be listed as
an endangered species, rather than a
threatened species.
Our Response: Most of these
comments did not provide additional
information or criteria to justify listing
the species as endangered. Those
commenters who did provide a basis for
endangered status identified potential
habitat destruction, natural and human-
induced changes in streamflows, urban
development and related land-use
practices, intensive recreation, the
introduction of nonnative competitors
and predators, and demographics
associated with small populations as
reasons that remaining populations
were threatened with extinction. We
agree that multiple factors threaten the
Santa Ana sucker (see ‘‘Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species’’ section).
However, we do not believe the Santa
Ana sucker meets the Act’s definition of
endangered, which is a species ‘‘in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ The Act
defines a threatened species as ‘‘any
species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ (section
3(19)). Although current population
estimates do not exist for any of the
sucker populations, all of the currently
known populations within the native
range were surveyed in 1999. In each
drainage, suckers were locally common
in 1999, and no populations appeared to
be in imminent danger of extinction. We
conclude that the remaining
populations that constitute the native
range of Santa Ana sucker are likely to
become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, the Act’s
definition of a threatened species fits
the current situation of the Santa Ana
sucker best.
Issue 2: Some commenters expressed
support for designating critical habitat
and felt that we should designate
critical habitat for the species at the
time of listing. Other commenters
offered specific recommendations for
areas to list as critical habitat, or
requested that we not designate critical
habitat in specific stream reaches.
Our Response: In this rule, as in the
proposed rule, we find that critical
habitat is not determinable because the
biological needs of the Santa Ana sucker
are not sufficiently known to identify an
area as critical habitat. When a ‘‘not
determinable’’ finding is made, we
must, within 2 years of the publication
date of the original proposed rule,
propose the designation of critical
habitat unless such designation is found
to be not prudent. For a more detailed
evaluation of our critical habitat finding
for the Santa Ana sucker, and an
explanation of ‘‘not determinable’’ and
‘‘not prudent’’ findings, please see the
‘‘Critical Habitat’’ section.
Issue 3: Some commenters requested
that we list the Santa Clara population
as threatened or endangered. Another
commenter asked if the Santa Clara
River population would require any
increased protection because of its
possible role in the recovery of the
species.
Our Response: In the proposed rule,
we identified only those Santa Ana
sucker populations within the native
range of the species for listing as
threatened. The native range of the
Santa Ana sucker is considered to be the
rivers and streams of the Los Angeles,
San Gabriel, and Santa Ana River
Basins. The Santa Clara population is
presumed to be an introduced
population, although this presumption
is based on its absence from early
collections, and not on a documented
record of introduction (Hubbs et al.
1943; Miller 1968; Moyle 1976a; Bell
1978). Therefore, the Santa Clara River
population was not included in the
proposal to list the species.
We believe that the Santa Ana sucker
has lost about 75 percent of its historic
native range. Considering the total
remaining range of the species as all
those areas currently occupied by the
Santa Ana sucker, including both native
and introduced populations, the
portions of the Santa Clara River
occupied by the species constitute
approximately 50 percent of the total
remaining range of the species. In light
of the current status of the Santa Ana
sucker, and the portion of the remaining
range that occurs in the Santa Clara
River system, further evaluation of the
Santa Clara population is needed to
determine its role in the recovery of the
species. If the Santa Clara River
population is determined to be crucial
to the recovery of the species, we may
need to reevaluate the status of this
population under the Act.
Issue 4: Several commenters
expressed the opinion that recreational
suction dredging actually benefits the
Santa Ana sucker, and that such suction
dredging should be allowed to continue
in streams occupied by the species.
Our Response: Suction dredging is the
use of a suction system to remove and
return material at the bottom of a
stream, river, or lake for the extraction
of minerals. Suction dredging in
California is regulated by the CDFG
under section 228 of the California Code
of Regulations and by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The
USFS may also regulate this activity by
closing streams to dredging on Forest
Service lands. The USACE does not
require a section 404 permit for holders
of a CDFG 5653 Standard Dredge
Permit, but does require a 404 permit for
all other types of dredging. Suction
dredge operators are required to obtain
a permit from CDFG, which is valid for
a calender year (J. Reese, USACE, in litt.
1995; CDFG, in litt. 1999). In 1999, all
counties where the Santa Ana sucker
naturally occur were open to suction
dredging (Los Angeles, Orange, and
Riverside Counties); however, the East
Fork of the San Gabriel River and
portions of the West Fork of the San
Gabriel River are covered by special
regulation. The East Fork is the only
stream containing Santa Ana suckers
that is commonly subject to suction
dredging. CDFG issues special dredge
permits for this stream with conditions
to exclude dredging from April 1 to June
30. The closed period is to allow
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19690 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
resident fish and amphibians to spawn
without interference from dredging.
CDFG issued approximately 200 special
dredging permits in 1995 for the East
Fork, the first year the stream had been
dredged legally in 15 years. This
number has decreased steadily to
approximately 40 special dredging
permits issued in 1999 (Dwayne
Maxwell, CDFG, pers. comm. 1999).
Few studies exist on suction dredging
and its effects on aquatic ecosystems. Of
the studies conducted, most indicate
that the effects of a single suction
dredge on overall habitat and on benthic
(bottom of the stream) aquatic insect
communities are highly localized and
short term, but vary with stream
gradient, flow regime, and sediment
load characteristics of the stream
(Griffith and Andrews 1981; Harvey et
al. 1982; Thomas 1985; Harvey 1986;
Hall 1988; Somer and Hassler 1992). In
general, suction dredging removes all
substrates smaller than the diameter of
the intake nozzle and deposits them as
large, unstable piles just downstream
from the dredge. Harvey et al. (1982)
found that on the American River, Yuba
River, and Butte Creek, California,
settleable solids and sedimentation rate
both increased within several meters of
the suction dredge, but rapidly returned
to ambient levels downstream.
Turbidity, however, was more variable.
Streams with higher clay content
substrates experienced greater long-
lasting changes in turbidity. As with the
work by Harvey et al. (1982), Thomas
(1985) found during a study on Gold
Creek in Missoula County, Montana,
that suction dredging had only
localized, short-term effects on insects
living in the soil. Just after dredging,
numbers of soil-living insects were
significantly reduced in the dredged
area. However, within 10 meters (32.5
feet) downstream of the dredged area,
insect numbers and turbidity were
normal. Within a month, aquatic insect
numbers had returned to normal in the
dredged section of the stream (Thomas
1985). In addition, Somer and Hassler
(1992) found that, while the species
composition of benthic insects was
altered within sections of streams
adjacent to suction dredging, overall
abundance remained the same.
Thomas (1985) observed cutthroat
trout opportunistically feeding on
invertebrates dislodged by a suction
dredge. In some circumstances, habitat
may be temporarily created by suction
dredging. Harvey (1986) observed that
fish occupying a riffle during late
summer in Butte Creek, California,
moved into a newly created dredge
excavation, presumably seeking deeper
water. Harvey found that adult fishes in
general were not sensitive to dredging;
however, riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus),
a benthic species, was displaced from
suction-dredged areas, probably due to
disturbance of its microhabitat. Harvey
also suspected that the microhabitats of
speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus)
would also be deleteriously altered by
suction dredging.
Although the effects of recreational
suction dredging on adult fishes may
range from beneficial to deleterious,
such dredging appears to have strong
negative impacts to early life stages of
fishes. Griffith and Andrews (1981)
found a mortality rates of up to 100
percent for cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki) eggs and fry, and
rainbow trout (O. mykiss) un-eyed eggs
and sac fry that pass through a suction
dredge. Harvey and Lisle (1998) noted
that passing through a suction dredge
would likely kill eggs, larvae, and fry of
other types of fishes as well, including
suckers (Catostomidae). Harvey et al.
(1995) concluded that small larvae of
fish such as suckers are easily damaged
by physical disturbance caused by the
dredge, but adults and juveniles are
unlikely to be directly affected by
suction dredges since they can either
avoid or survive the passage through a
dredge. In a review of the current
literature on suction dredging, Harvey
and Lisle (1998) concluded that while
effects from dredging may be minor and
local in some situations, fisheries
managers would be prudent to consider
dredging to be a harmful practice in
streams that support threatened or
endangered species.
No studies exist that specifically
address the effects of suction dredging
on Santa Ana suckers. In the proposed
rule, we concluded that suction
dredging may impact larvae and eggs of
Santa Ana suckers, particularly if
dredging is concentrated in an area
containing spawning suckers. Santa Ana
suckers and speckled dace, another
species in the East Fork of the San
Gabriel River, appear to prefer larger
unconsolidated cobble substrates. These
types of substrates may actually be
created by suction dredging (Harvey and
Lisle 1998). Also, suction dredging may
provide local increases in food
resources for fish (Thomas 1985).
However, as stated above, suction
dredging could result in mortality of
eggs or larvae during spawning periods,
and so should be excluded from Santa
Ana sucker habitats during spawning.
We will continue to evaluate the overall
effects of suction dredging on Santa Ana
suckers and provide specific
recommendations to CDFG and the
USFS based on those results.
Issue 5: We received comments that
the Service should consider the
application of a special rule under
section 4(d) of the Act for the Santa Ana
sucker in the Santa Ana River. The
special rule would exempt certain
activities from the take prohibitions of
the Act, so long as a Service-approved
Santa Ana sucker conservation plan is
funded and implemented. The
conservation plan would provide for the
conservation of the species within the
Santa Ana River watershed.
Our Response: Under section 4(d) of
the Act, we have the authority to issue
regulations as deemed necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of a species listed as
threatened. We are interested in
pursuing collaborative, proactive efforts
to conserve the Santa Ana sucker. A
special rule under section 4(d) could
provide an incentive for State, county,
and local jurisdictions, as well as
private land owners, to protect and
conserve the Santa Ana sucker. This
special rule could potentially provide
for substantial conservation of the Santa
Ana sucker. The comments we received
from the County of Orange, Orange
County Water District, and Santa Ana
River Watershed Group provided
background information to consider the
possibilities of a special rule under
section 4(d). If our review of this
information indicates that the
application of a special rule under 4(d)
to facilitate the conservation of the
Santa Ana sucker warrants further
evaluation, we will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of intent to
consider such a rule.
Issue 6: Commenters expressed
concerns about the effects of listing the
Santa Ana sucker on the continued use
of the San Gabriel Canyon Off Highway
Vehicle Area (SGCOHVA), located at the
confluence of the East and West Forks
of the San Gabriel River in the Angeles
National Forest.
Our Response: Although surveys in
1999 failed to record the Santa Ana
sucker in the West Fork of the San
Gabriel River (R. Ally, CDGF, in litt.
1999), the species was found within 1.6
km (1.0 mile) of the SGCOHVA during
1999 surveys of the East Fork (G.
Knowles, in litt. 1999b). Therefore, we
conclude that Santa Ana suckers can be
expected to occur in the SGCOHVA.
The commenters stated that the use of
the SGCOHVA would have minimal
impact to the species because off-road
vehicles are not used in streams but
cross streams only to access other areas
of the SGCOHVA. However, the
operation of off-road vehicles in the
SGCOHVA could adversely affect Santa
Ana sucker habitat due to increased
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19691Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
sedimentation to the stream from
erosion, or alteration of channel
morphology from the physical
disturbance of crossing the stream. In
addition, one recent study found that
certain types of stream crossings can act
as barriers to fish movement (Warren
and Pardew 1998), although temporary
ford crossings, such as those currently
in the SGCOHVA, were not a significant
barrier to fish dispersal. Since the
overall impact of the SGCOHVA to
Santa Ana suckers is not currently
known, further evaluation is required.
Under section 7 of the Act, Federal
agencies are required to insure, through
consultation with us, that any actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species. The
USFS would need to consult with us on
the impacts that off-road vehicles in the
SGCOHVA, or other ongoing and future
activities on national forest lands,
would have on Santa Ana suckers.
Issue 7: Several commenters were
concerned that future efforts to
repatriate the Santa Ana sucker into
streams of the upper Santa Ana River
Drainage would adversely impact the
operation of hydroelectric facilities in
the area.
Our Response: No decision has been
made to reestablish Santa Ana suckers
into areas formerly occupied by the
species. However, considering the large
amount of habitat loss (the Santa Ana
sucker is believed to be extirpated from
about 75 percent of its former range),
reintroduction of Santa Ana suckers into
formerly occupied habitats may be an
important component of a recovery plan
for the species. A decision to
reintroduce the Santa Ana suckers to
formerly occupied areas would be part
of the recovery efforts for the species
and would include analysis under and
compliance with the Act, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
other applicable Federal laws and
regulations. Such analysis would
include an evaluation of the impacts
reintroduction would have on
hydroelectric facilities and ways to
minimize potential conflicts.
Issue 8: Commenters were concerned
that listing the Santa Ana sucker would
impair the ability of flood control
districts to protect upland property from
flooding. A commenter stated that the
Santa Ana sucker has managed to adapt
to the long history of flood control and
maintenance activities in the Santa Ana
River, and therefore, these activities
should be allowed to continue.
According to the commenters, flood
control districts are willing to work with
us to develop plans that would promote
the recovery of the Santa Ana sucker to
the ‘‘maximum extent possible.’’
Our Response: The issue of flood
control in Santa Ana sucker habitat is of
critical importance. We disagree that the
species has managed to adapt to flood
control activity in the Santa Ana River.
Flood control activity, such as bank
stabilization, channelization, vegetation
removal, drop structures, and the
construction of dams, dikes, and
diversions, has been implicated as a key
factor responsible for the decline of not
only the Santa Ana sucker but six other
species of freshwater fishes native to the
Los Angeles Basin (Swift et al. 1993).
An example of the adverse impacts of
flood control activity on this species is
the Santa Ana River at Imperial
Highway (State Highway 90) near
Anaheim. Santa Ana suckers were
common at this site in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. During the last 15
years, the USACE has undertaken
various flood control activities at the
site. The river has been channelized,
riparian vegetation removed, and banks
stabilized with rip rap and concrete.
Santa Ana suckers have not been
recorded in this reach since 1996.
Although the exact reasons for the
apparent disappearance of Santa Ana
suckers from this area may never be
known, the drastic changes to its habitat
by flood control activities are plausibly
a key factor (Chadwick and Associates
1996; Robert Fisher, pers. comm. 1999;
M. Saiki, pers. comm. 1999).
We commend the willingness of the
flood control districts to work with us
to develop a plan to recover the Santa
Ana sucker. The Santa Ana River,
within the jurisdiction of various flood
control districts, contains some of the
best remaining occupied habitat for
Santa Ana suckers within this drainage,
and the protection and enhancement of
this habitat likely will be crucial to the
recovery of the species. Certain flood
control activities are regulated by the
USACE under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Under section 7 of the Act,
Federal agencies are required to insure,
through consultation with us, that any
actions they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any listed
species. The impacts of ongoing and
future flood control activities to Santa
Ana sucker would be addressed during
the section 7 consultation process. In
addition, we are considering proposing
special regulations under the authority
of section 4(d) of the Act that would
promote the conservation of the Santa
Ana sucker by exempting certain
activities from the take prohibitions of
the Act in association with
implementing locally prepared, Service-
approved programs that would
contribute to the overall conservation of
the species (see ‘‘Issue 5’’).
Issue 9: Commenters expressed the
concern that the listing of the Santa Ana
sucker is premature because sound
scientific evidence does not exist
demonstrating that the species
populations are decreasing, because
surveys have been inadequate to
document declining populations, and
because apparent declines represent
natural variation in population size
resulting from climate cycles and not
from human-induced changes to
ecosystems.
Our Response: We estimate that the
Santa Ana sucker has been eliminated
from about 75 percent of its former
native range. This loss has been caused
by habitat destruction, natural and
human-induced changes in streamflows,
urban development and related land-use
practices, and the introduction of
nonnative competitors and predators
(Moyle et al. 1995; Swift et al. 1993).
The utilization of the rivers of the Los
Angeles Basin for irrigation began as
early as 1821, and was extensive by the
1880s (Miller 1961). The demands of an
increasing human population in the Los
Angeles area resulted in an extreme
level of utilization of the Los Angeles
Basin Rivers that was apparent as early
as 1930, when McGlashan (1930) wrote
of the Santa Ana River, ‘‘Probably no
other stream of its size in the United
States is made to serve greater or more
varied uses.’’ By the 1950s, urbanization
of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan
area had resulted in severe declines of
the native fish fauna of the Los Angeles
Basin, such that four fish species had
been extirpated from the basin (Swift et
al. 1993). This urbanization resulted in
conversion of Santa Ana sucker habitat
to the concrete-lined storm drains that
now constitute the lowermost reaches of
the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa
Ana Rivers (Mount 1995) (see
‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species’’ section). Moyle and
Yoshiyama (1992) stated, ‘‘[e]ven
though Santa Ana suckers seem to be
quite generalized in their habitat
requirements, they are intolerant of
polluted or highly modified streams.’’
The impacts associated with
urbanization are likely the primary
cause of the extirpation of Santa Ana
suckers from lower reaches of the Los
Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana
Rivers. We, therefore, disagree with the
contention that sound scientific
evidence does not exist demonstrating
that the species is decreasing. The
decline of the Santa Ana sucker and the
destruction of its habitat are well
documented (Miller 1961; Moyle 1976a;
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19692 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992; Swift et al.
1993; Moyle et al. 1995).
Issue 10: Commenters expressed the
belief that the newly completed Seven
Oaks Dam, upstream from the present
range of Santa Ana sucker in the Santa
Ana River, would not act as a barrier to
upstream fish movement. The only
flows connecting the upper and lower
Santa Ana River Basins in the last 40
years have been extreme flood flows,
which would cause Santa Ana suckers
to be lost downstream. In fact,
commenters felt that Seven Oaks Dam
would be beneficial for the species by
reducing the amount of fine particles
and sand deposited downstream in
flood flows, sediments that threaten
Santa Ana sucker habitat in the Santa
Ana River.
Our Response: We agree that the
surface flows of the Santa Ana River
between Riverside and Seven Oaks Dam
have long been diverted to provide
water for the communities in
southwestern San Bernardino County
and western Riverside County. We also
agree that this dewatered stretch, and
not the dam, is the current primary
barrier to the movement of Santa Ana
suckers upstream in the Santa Ana
River. However, records from the 1940s
indicate that Santa Ana suckers were
once a common resident in the now
dewatered stretch of the Santa Ana
River near San Bernardino. The
restoration of a more perennial flow to
these areas may make these areas
suitable for Santa Ana suckers. Ideally,
connectivity between the upper and
lower portions of the drainage would
allow for gene flow throughout the
population. However, even if water was
returned to dry reaches of the Santa Ana
River, Seven Oaks Dam would prevent
movement of Santa Ana suckers
between formerly occupied upstream
habitats and the lower reaches they
occupy now. Thus, Seven Oaks Dam
represents a more permanent barrier to
the movement of fishes than dewatered
sections of the stream.
We agree that sediment load
characteristics of the Santa Ana River
have been modified downstream from
Seven Oaks Dam. However, the ultimate
effects on sediment characteristics of the
Santa Ana River downstream of the
newly completed Seven Oaks Dam are,
at best, difficult to predict. In general,
streams below newly closed dams are
changed through narrowing and
deepening of their channels and
coarsening of their beds. This generally
results in an armored condition of the
river bed just below the dam, such that
the bed is lined with relatively large
particles that were mobile during high
flood flows before the dam was closed
but are now too heavy to be moved by
the new regime (Graf 1988; Mount
1995). Also, most dams have a high trap
efficiency, meaning that they trap most
sediment. Only the finer sediments get
through (Mount 1995). So, although we
cannot know for certain what effect the
newly completed Seven Oaks Dam will
have on the Santa Ana River
downstream, we can generally predict
that it will result in a decrease of coarser
materials and an increase in finer
substrates delivered to downstream
reaches. Seven Oaks Dam will further
prevent the Santa Ana River from
functioning as a natural river, a scenario
that has often had numerous negative
impacts on the aquatic environment
(Hunt 1988; Harden 1996; McCully
1996), as well as on the resident fish
populations (Miller 1961; Moyle 1976a;
Minckley and Deacon 1991; Mount
1995).
Peer Review
In accordance with the interagency
peer review policy published on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the
expert opinions of independent
specialists regarding pertinent scientific
or commercial data and assumptions
relating to the taxonomy, population
status, and supportive biological and
ecological information for the taxon
under consideration for listing. The
purpose of such review is to ensure that
listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses, including input of
appropriate experts and specialists. We
requested four individuals, who possess
expertise in Santa Ana sucker biology
and Catostomid ecology, and whose
affiliations include academia, a Federal
agency, and a private company, to
review the proposed rule by the close of
the comment period. Two individuals
responded to our request, and we have
addressed their comments in the
previous section of the rule, and in
updating the ‘‘Background’’ and
‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species’’ sections.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations
(50 CFR part 424) issued to implement
the listing provisions of the Act set forth
the procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. These factors and their application
to the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus
santaanae) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
Moyle and Yoshiyama (1992)
concluded that the native range of the
Santa Ana sucker is largely coincident
with the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
Intensive urban development of the area
has resulted in water diversions,
extreme alteration of stream channels,
changes in the watershed that result in
erosion and debris torrents, pollution,
and the establishment of introduced
nonnative fishes. Moyle and Yoshiyama
(1992) stated, ‘‘[e]ven though Santa Ana
suckers seem to be quite generalized in
their habitat requirements, they are
intolerant of polluted or highly
modified streams.’’ The impacts
associated with urbanization are likely
the primary cause of the extirpation of
this species from lowland reaches of the
Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa
Ana Rivers.
As the Los Angeles urban area
expanded, the Los Angeles Basin rivers
(the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San
Gabriel Rivers) were highly modified,
channelized, or moved in an effort to
either capture water runoff or protect
property. As Moyle (1976a) stated,
‘‘[t]he lower Los Angeles River is now
little more than a concrete storm drain.’’
The same is true for the Santa Ana and
San Gabriel Rivers. These channelized
rivers and canals with uniform and
altered substrates do not appear to be
suitable for sustaining Santa Ana sucker
populations (Swift et al. 1993;
Chadwick and Associates 1996), and the
species appears to persist only in
reaches that remain relatively
unchannelized. Past and continuing
projects have resulted (or will result) in
channelization of the Santa Ana River
throughout most of the range of the
Santa Ana sucker in Orange County.
Urban development also threatens the
Santa Ana sucker in the Los Angeles
and Santa Ana River Basins. This urban
development has also resulted in
changes in water quality and quantity
and the hydrologic regime of these
rivers. The Santa Ana sucker is one of
seven native freshwater fish species of
the Los Angeles Basin that have
declined drastically in the last 70 years.
Four of these species, the steelhead,
Pacific lamprey, Pacific brook lamprey,
and the unarmored threespine
stickleback have been extirpated from
the Los Angeles Basin since the 1950s,
and two others are very rare (Santa Ana
speckled dace and arroyo chub),
presumably due to the same factors that
have caused the decline of the Santa
Ana sucker (Swift et al. 1993) (For an
example of the apparent effects of
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19693Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
channelization on Santa Ana suckers,
see ‘‘Issue 8’’ in the ‘‘Summary of
Comments and Recommendations’’
section).
All three river systems have dams that
isolate and fragment fish populations.
These dams have likely resulted in some
populations being excluded from
suitable spawning and rearing
tributaries. Reservoirs created by the
dams also provide areas where
introduced predators and competitors
can live and reproduce (Moyle and
Light 1996) (see factor C of this section).
The newly completed Seven Oaks Dam,
upstream from the present range of
Santa Ana sucker in the Santa Ana
River, forms a barrier for the upstream
movement of fish and further isolates
Santa Ana sucker populations from their
native range in the headwaters of the
system.
The population of Santa Ana suckers
in the West Fork of the San Gabriel
River is threatened by accidental high
flows from Cogswell Reservoir, which
have devastated this section of stream
several times in the past (Moyle and
Yoshiyama 1992; Haglund and Baskins
1992; T. Haglund, in litt. 1996). T.
Haglund (in litt. 1996) stated that, ‘‘[t]he
West Fork population was wiped out by
a sluicing event (removal of sediment by
releasing a sudden flow of water) from
Cogswell Dam in 1981 (anecdotal data)
but recolonized from tributaries that
acted as refugia. However, data (from
CDFG, no date) suggest that the suckers
have never returned to their former
abundance.’’ Santa Ana suckers have
biological adaptations that allow the
fish to quickly repopulate streams
following periodic flood events (Moyle
et al. 1995). However, successive high
flows could eliminate the sucker
population in the West Fork of the San
Gabriel River by rapidly depleting the
individuals soon after they migrate into
the mainstem from tributaries. Proposals
for additional sluicing or other sediment
removal activities from the Cogswell
reservoir on the San Gabriel River
system are being considered (R. C.
Hight, in litt. 1999). The potential effects
of the proposed sediment management
project may also degrade the habitat of
the Santa Ana sucker by depositing
large amounts of silt on the streambed,
causing a rapid increase in suspended
sediments in the water column.
The petitioners contended that
suction dredge mining has increased in
the Cattle Canyon tributary to the East
Fork of the San Gabriel River, thereby
threatening the Santa Ana sucker. A
commenter indicated that no suction
dredging has occurred in Cattle Canyon
and suggested that the petitioners took
Moyle and Yoshiyama (1992) out of
context (Gerald Hobbs, Public Lands
Action Committee, in litt. 1996, 1999).
The CDFG (Patricia Wolf, CDFG, in litt.
1996) indicated they are not aware of
suction dredging in the Cattle Canyon
tributary to the East Fork of the San
Gabriel River. However, they had issued
nearly 200 Special Dredge Permits for
the East Fork of the San Gabriel River
in 1995, the first time the East Fork had
been dredged in 15 years. This number
has dropped to approximately 40
Special Dredge Permits issued in 1999
for the East Fork San Gabriel River (D.
Maxwell, CDFG, pers. comm. 1999).
Even though surveys from 1996 through
1999 indicate the East Fork of the San
Gabriel River continues to maintain a
healthy Santa Ana sucker population (R.
Ally, in litt. 1996; J. Hernandez, in litt.
1997;, M. Saiki, pers. comm. 1999),
suction dredging may impact larvae and
eggs of Santa Ana suckers, particularly
if dredging is concentrated in an area
containing spawning suckers. Harvey
and Lisle (1998) recommended that,
given the uncertainty concerning the
effects of suction dredging, fisheries
managers would be wise to assume that
suction dredging is a harmful practice in
streams that support threatened or
endangered species. (See ‘‘Issue 4’’ in
the ‘‘Summary of Comments and
Recommendations’’ section.)
Recreational activities on forest lands
may also pose some threat to Santa Ana
sucker habitat quality. Annually,
thousands of people from the Los
Angeles metropolitan area and adjacent
urban communities use wilderness and
nonwilderness areas within the Big
Tujunga Creek and San Gabriel Forks
areas of the Angeles National Forest for
recreation. The impact of large numbers
of people using these areas include
destruction of streambank vegetation,
streambank erosion, and the disposal of
untreated human waste and other refuse
into the creeks, all of which degrade
water quality (D. Maxwell, CDFG, pers.
comm. 1999). Given the projected
growth of the Los Angeles metropolitan
area, this threat should increase.
Although the Santa Ana sucker
evolved under conditions that
presumably included droughts, water
diversions and management practices
threaten the continued existence of the
species. For example, stretches of the
upper Santa Ana River have been
permanently dewatered, eliminating
Santa Ana sucker populations and
migration through these reaches to other
areas (Swift et al. 1993). As previously
discussed, channelization of the rivers
of the Los Angeles Basin, water quality
degradation, and dam construction have
all combined to degrade and eliminate
historic Santa Ana sucker habitat.
Future human population and urban
growth of the basin will further stress
the natural resources of the basin and
likely exacerbate these conditions by
further destruction and degradation of
Santa Ana sucker habitat.
Degradation of water quality in the
Santa Ana and Los Angeles Rivers may
threaten the Santa Ana sucker (Moyle
and Yoshiyama 1992). Suckers are
common in some areas upstream from
Prado Dam where several water
treatment facilities discharge into the
Santa Ana River (Chadwick and
Associates 1992). Chadwick and
Associates (1992) attributed high sucker
numbers to adequate water supplies
discharged by the treatment facilities
and the presence of tributaries that offer
spawning areas and refugia for suckers.
However, they did note that the Santa
Ana River between Mission Boulevard
and Interstate 10 probably would not
support viable populations of fishes,
due, in part, to ‘‘elevated levels of
chlorine and unionized ammonia.’’
Overall, Santa Ana sucker numbers are
much reduced in the Santa Ana River,
and the Santa Ana River population
appears to be less healthy than
populations in other rivers occupied by
the species (Moyle and Yoshiyama
1992; M. Saiki, pers. comm. 1999; P.
Wolf, in litt. 1996).
The small mile-long stretch of Big
Tujunga and Haines Canyon Creeks that
appears to provide a critical refugia for
the Santa Ana sucker, as well as the
arroyo chub and Santa Ana speckled
dace, is threatened by the potential
water quality impacts of a proposed golf
course development to be built just
upstream of Interstate 210 (Bill Eick, in
litt. 1999). Cohen et al. (1999) reviewed
studies of 36 golf courses around the
United States in an effort to evaluate the
impacts to water quality by golf courses.
Although no toxicologically significant
impacts were observed by the authors,
maximum allowable concentrations of
pesticides and related chemicals for
aquatic organisms occasionally were
exceeded. Moreover, maximum
contaminant levels/health advisory
levels were frequently exceeded for
various pesticides and ground water
nitrate-nitrogen. Although the water
quality tolerances of Santa Ana suckers
are unknown, in general, point and non-
point source pollution (e.g., urban
runoff, sedimentation) have
significantly degraded the water quality
in most of the native range of the Santa
Ana sucker.
In an effort to identify what
environmental variables affect the Santa
Ana sucker, the Biological Resources
Division of the USGS, in conjunction
with the Orange County Water District,
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 17:15 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 12APR1
19694 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
County of Orange, Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works, and the
Service, is nearing completion of a
study of the factors affecting Santa Ana
sucker abundance. Initial results from
this study indicate that tissue
concentrations of inorganic and organic
contaminants from Santa Ana suckers
from the San Gabriel and Santa Ana
Rivers were not unusually high.
However, measurements of electrical
conductance and turbidity did show
significant negative correlations with
Santa Ana sucker abundance, indicating
that Santa Ana suckers are less tolerant
where conditions are more turbid and
contain more salts (M. Saiki, pers.
comm. 1999). Based on available
information, we conclude that increased
turbidity and associated deposition of
fine particles and sand likely threaten
the Santa Ana sucker population in the
Santa Ana River by decreasing the
availability of cobble and other hard
substrates and altering the water quality
preferred by the species (Moyle and
Yoshiyama 1992).
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Sporting, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
We are not aware of any commercial
or recreational demand for the Santa
Ana sucker. Although the CDFG
reported that Santa Ana suckers had
been illegally caught with gill and throw
nets in the Santa Ana River below Prado
Dam (Lt. M. Maytorena, CDFG, pers.
comm. 1997), the relative impact of
illegal harvesting of the species is
unknown.
C. Disease or Predation
Moyle and Yoshiyama (1992)
concluded that introduced brown trout
(Salmo trutta) may have caused the
extirpation of the Santa Ana sucker from
the upper Santa Ana River in the San
Bernardino Mountains. The petitioners
noted that centrarchid (sunfishes) and
bullheads prey on suckers. In the Los
Angeles River, such introduced
predators aggregate in pools during
droughts and are presumably feeding on
native fishes, including Santa Ana
suckers (Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund, in litt. 1994). Similar conditions
exist in the Santa Ana River. Predation
by introduced fishes in combination
with habitat destruction has been
implicated in the decline of other
species of suckers in the Southwest
(Minckley et al. 1991; Scoppettone and
Vinyard 1991) and on native fishes in
general in California (Moyle 1976b).
Initial results from the USGS study
mentioned above indicate that the
presence of nonnative fish species was
more strongly correlated with the
absence of Santa Ana suckers than any
water quality variable. Strongly
significant negative associations were
found with common carp (Cyprinus
carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), and fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas), indicating
nonnative fishes may exclude Santa Ana
suckers by competition, or eliminate
suckers through predation (M. Saiki,
pers. comm. 1999). Nonnative
introduced fishes have long been
recognized as having far-reaching
negative impacts to native fishes in
North America (Moyle et al. 1986).
Accordingly, introduced predators and
competitors likely threaten the
continued existence of Santa Ana
suckers throughout most of the range of
the species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Despite existing regulatory
mechanisms and conservation activities
accomplished to date by private, State,
and Federal entities, the Santa Ana
sucker has continued to decline
throughout a significant portion of its
range. Existing regulatory mechanisms
that might provide some protection for
the Santa Ana sucker if it was not listed
include the California Endangered
Species Act, California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), NEPA, Clean Water
Act, Federal Endangered Species Act
(where the Santa Ana sucker occurs in
areas where other federally listed
species are located), and land
management or conservation measures
by Federal, State, or local agencies or by
private groups and organizations.
The State of California considers the
Santa Ana sucker a ‘‘species of special
concern.’’ However, the Santa Ana
sucker is not listed as endangered or
threatened by the State, and ‘‘species of
special concern’’ are afforded no
protection under the California
Endangered Species Act.
CEQA requires full public disclosure
of the potential environmental impact of
proposed projects. This law also
obligates disclosure of environmental
resources within proposed project areas
and may enhance opportunities for
conservation efforts. However, CEQA
does not guarantee that such
conservation efforts will be
implemented. The public agency with
primary authority or jurisdiction over
the project is designated as the lead
agency under CEQA, and is responsible
for conducting a review of the project
and consulting with other agencies
concerned with resources affected by
the project. Section 15065 of the CEQA
guidelines requires a finding of
significance if a project has the potential
to ‘‘reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal.’’ Although not currently listed
under the California Endangered
Species Act, the Santa Ana sucker
would likely qualify as a rare species
under section 15380 of the CEQA
guidelines and thus would be given the
same consideration under CEQA as
those species that are officially listed
with the State. Once significant impacts
are identified, the lead agency may
either require mitigation for effects
through changes in the project or decide
that overriding considerations justify
approval of a project with significant
impacts. In the latter case, projects may
be approved that cause significant
environmental damage, such as
resulting in the loss of habitat
supporting State-listed species.
Protection of listed species through
CEQA is, therefore, not assured.
NEPA requires an intensive
environmental review of projects that
may adversely affect a federally listed
species, but project proponents are not
required to avoid impacts to nonlisted
species. The primary purpose of NEPA
is to require Federal agencies to fully
disclose impacts that would result from
their proposed actions, and to make
findings regarding the significance of
those impacts. It does not require that
resources be protected.
Lead agencies responsible under
CEQA and/or NEPA have made
determinations that have adversely
affected, or would adversely affect, the
Santa Ana sucker and its habitat.
Examples of projects that have been
completed or are currently undergoing
the review process under CEQA and/or
NEPA that would impact this species
include the Santa Ana River Mainstem
Project, containing multiple projects
including Seven Oaks Dam and the
raising of Prado Dam, and the continued
channelization of the Santa Ana River in
Orange County. The reviews for these
projects have not addressed the effects
of the proposed actions on the Santa
Ana sucker, despite its status as a
species proposed for listing. Similarly,
on the San Gabriel River, proposed silt
removal from Cogswell Dam may
adversely affect the sucker. While
projects altering a stream course are
subject to review under section 1601 or
1603 of the California Fish and Game
Code, such State regulations have not
prevented habitat loss or sufficiently
protected habitats to prevent the decline
of the Santa Ana sucker.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
currently affords some protection for the
Santa Ana sucker. However, the Clean
Water Act, by itself, does not provide
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19695Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
adequate protection for the Santa Ana
sucker. Although the objective of the
Clean Water Act is to ‘‘restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s
waters’’ (33 U.S.C. 1251), this law
contains no specific provisions to
address the conservation needs of rare
species. USACE is the Federal agency
with primary responsibility for
administering the section 404 program.
Under section 404, nationwide permits
may be issued for certain activities that
are considered to have minimal impacts,
including minor dredging and
discharges of dredged material, some
road crossings, and minor bank
stabilization (December 13, 1996; 61 FR
65873). USACE seldom withholds
authorization of an activity under
nationwide permits unless the existence
of a listed threatened or endangered
species would be jeopardized. Activities
that do not qualify for authorization
under a nationwide permit, including
projects that would result in more than
minimal adverse environmental effects,
either individually or cumulatively,
may be authorized by an individual
permit or regional general permit, which
are typically subject to more extensive
review. Regardless of the type of permit
deemed necessary under section 404,
rare species such as the Santa Ana
sucker may receive no special
consideration with regard to
conservation or protection unless they
are listed under the Act.
As part of the section 404 review
process, we provide comments to
USACE on nationwide permits and
individual permits under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. Our
comments are only advisory, although
procedures exist for elevating permit
review within the agencies when
disagreements between us and USACE
arise concerning the issuance of a
permit. In practice, the section 404
permit review process has often proven
to be inadequate to protect unlisted but
rare species, such as the Santa Ana
sucker.
The Santa Ana sucker may receive a
small amount of protection from the
overlap of its habitat with two federally
endangered birds, the least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) and the
southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus).
Consideration for these listed bird
species protects some areas from
projects that could ultimately damage
Santa Ana sucker habitat. However,
protection is limited because these
listed bird species occupy different
areas and have dissimilar ecological
requirements from the Santa Ana
sucker. Although the federally
endangered San Bernardino kangaroo
rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) also
occurs along the Santa Ana River, this
listed mammal occurs upstream from
the present range of the Santa Ana
sucker. Therefore, the presence of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat will have
little effect on the status or protection
afforded the sucker.
USFS lands encompass approximately
15 percent of the current native range of
the Santa Ana sucker. Although a small
percentage of the range is within a
designated wilderness area, the majority
of the range on USFS lands is not under
wilderness management. Wilderness
designation offers no direct regulatory
protection to the sucker, but it does
reduce some human-induced impacts
on the stream. For example, motorized
equipment is excluded from these areas.
This restriction reduces or eliminates all
motorized recreation and mining
activities within the wilderness areas.
Because these types of activities may
harm Santa Ana sucker populations and
habitats, wilderness designation offers
some indirect benefit to the species.
Santa Ana sucker habitat on USFS is
also not subject to the development
pressures existing on private land.
However, this protection likely is
partially offset by the recreational
impacts discussed earlier (see factor
‘‘A’’).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting its Continued Existence
Periodic wildfires could adversely
affect Santa Ana suckers by eliminating
vegetation that shades the water and
moderates water temperature, or by
producing silt-and-ash-laden runoff that
can significantly increase the turbidity
of rivers. Although recent fires,
including the 1996 Biedebach Fire (near
the vicinity of Prairie Fork on the East
Fork of the San Gabriel River) and the
1999 Bridge Fire (adjacent to the West
and North Forks of the San Gabriel
River), did not burn the riparian
corridor, they may have contributed
increased runoff and siltation to the
creek.
The high degree of fragmentation of
the remaining Santa Ana sucker
populations makes the species
especially vulnerable to random events,
environmental factors, and loss of
genetic variability. A small population
size increases the rate of inbreeding and
may allow increased expression of
deleterious recessive genes occurring in
the population (known as inbreeding
depression). Loss of genetic variability,
through random genetic drift (random
gene frequency changes in a small
population due to chance), reduces the
ability of small populations to respond
successfully to environmental stresses.
Most of the lowland river habitats have
been lost, and the remaining
populations of Santa Ana suckers are
low in numbers, with the exception of
the San Gabriel Forks populations.
Although Santa Ana suckers are locally
common in what remains of their native
range, the total population size of any
one of the remaining native populations
is still relatively small. Random events,
such as floods, variations of annual
weather patterns, predation and
associated demographic uncertainty
(conditions affected by chance events,
such as sex ratios, that influence
survival and reproduction in small
populations), or other environmental
stresses and human-caused factors, such
as chemical spills, may lead to the
demise of the remnant populations in
the Los Angeles or Santa Ana Basins.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats faced by this species
in determining its status. Based on this
evaluation, the preferred action is to list
the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus
santaanae) as threatened. While not in
immediate danger of extinction, the
Santa Ana sucker is likely to become an
endangered species in the foreseeable
future if the present threats continue
and populations decline further.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3,
paragraph (5)(A), of the Act as the
specific areas within the geographic area
occupied by a species, at the time it is
listed in accordance with the Act, on
which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and that may
require special management
considerations or protection; and
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by a species at the time
it is listed in accordance with the
provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon
a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use
of all methods and procedures needed
to bring the species to the point at
which listing under the Act is no longer
necessary.
Critical habitat designation, by
definition, directly affects only Federal
agency actions through consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat.
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19696 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate
critical habitat at the time the species is
determined to be endangered or
threatened. According to Service
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)), critical
habitat is not determinable if
information sufficient to perform
required analysis of the impacts of the
designation is lacking or if the biological
needs of the species are not sufficiently
well known to permit identification of
an area as critical habitat. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider
economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific
data available. The Secretary may
exclude any area from critical habitat if
he determines that the economic
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
conservation benefits of designation,
unless to do so would result in the
extinction of the species.
In designating critical habitat, we
consider the following requirements of
the species: Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,
or rearing of offspring; and, generally,
habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historic geographical and ecological
distributions of this species (see 50 CFR
424.12(b)). In addition to these factors,
we also focus on the known physical
and biological features (primary
constituent elements) within the
designated area that are essential to the
conservation of the species and may
require special management
considerations or protection. The
essential features for the Santa Ana
sucker may include, but are not limited
to, spawning sites, food resources, and
water quality and quantity (see 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
We conclude that the knowledge and
understanding of the biological needs
and environmental limitations of the
Santa Ana sucker and the primary
constituent elements of its habitat are
insufficient to determine critical habitat
for the fish. We believe that the Santa
Ana sucker is intolerant of highly
polluted waters, but little information is
available concerning this possible
limiting factor. Furthermore, in the
Santa Ana River, suckers remain extant,
although rare, in the lower reaches
where water quality is degraded relative
to the headwaters. We need additional
information on the environmental limits
of the sucker to enable us to accurately
designate critical habitat for the Santa
Ana sucker throughout its range. The
physical and biological features
including but not limited to water
chemistry, water temperature, instream
flows, streambed substrate and
structure, and fauna and flora of the
aquatic environment that supports the
Santa Ana sucker are the features about
which we need additional information.
In an effort to gain these data, the
Orange County Water District, the
County of Orange, Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
the Biological Resources Division of
USGS, and the Service have funded and
implemented research on the
environmental limitations of the Santa
Ana Sucker. The study is nearing
completion and has already identified
some environmental parameters,
including water quality (e.g., turbidity
and conductivity) and some biological
parameters (introduced nonnative fish
species) associated with variations in
population densities. These correlations
will help guide future research to focus
on the variable(s) most likely to limit
sucker populations.
When a ‘‘not determinable’’ finding is
made, we must, within 2 years of the
publication date of the original
proposed rule, propose the designation
of critical habitat, unless the designation
is found to be not prudent. Initial results
of the USGS–Santa Ana sucker study
have been incorporated into this rule. A
final report should be available later this
year. We will use this study and other
new information to reevaluate our
knowledge of the species and, if
determined prudent, propose critical
habitat for the Santa Ana sucker. We
will continue in our efforts to obtain
more information on Santa Ana sucker
biology and ecology, including
distribution, population density, and
essential habitat characteristics,
particularly in regard to water quality.
We will also use the information
resulting from these efforts to identify
measures needed to achieve
conservation of the species, as defined
under the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition
through listing encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal,
State, and private agencies, groups, and
individuals. The Act provides for
possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the States, and
requires that recovery plans be carried
out for all listed species. Funding may
be available through section 6 of the Act
for the State to conduct recovery
activities. The protection required of
Federal agencies and the prohibitions
against certain activities involving listed
plants are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species
that is proposed or listed as endangered
or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is being
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal
agencies to confer with us on any action
that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for
listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat. If a species is listed
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species
or destroy or adversely modify its
critical habitat, if designated. If a
Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter
into formal consultation with us, under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Federal agencies expected to consult
with us under section 7 regarding the
Santa Ana sucker include USACE and
the Environmental Protection Agency
because of their permitting authority
under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. The USFS may consult with us on
its activities on the Angeles National
Forest and Los Padres National Forest.
These agencies either administer lands/
waters containing the Santa Ana sucker
or authorize, fund, or otherwise conduct
activities that may affect this species.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered and threatened
wildlife not covered by a special rule.
These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR
17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to take (including
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or
attempt any such conduct), import or
export, transport in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
listed species. It is also illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:33 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 12APR1
19697Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to our agents and State conservation
agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.32.
Such permits are available for scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and/or for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. For
threatened species, permits also are
available for zoological exhibition,
educational purposes, or special uses
consistent with the mission of the Act.
As published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 34272) on July 1, 1994, our
policy is to identify to the maximum
extent practicable those activities that
would or would not be likely to
constitute a violation of section 9 of the
Act if a species is listed. The intent of
this policy is to increase public
awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
a species’ range. We believe the
following actions would not likely
result in a violation of section 9:
(1) Actions that may affect the Santa
Ana sucker and are authorized, funded,
or carried out by a Federal agency when
the action is conducted in accordance
with any reasonable and prudent
alternatives or reasonable and prudent
measures to minimize the impacts of
take identified by us in accordance with
section 7 of the Act; and
(2) Possession, transport within or
between States, and import and export,
with proper permits, of Santa Ana
suckers that were legally collected prior
to the date of publication in the Federal
Register of the final regulation adding
this species to the list of threatened and
endangered species.
Activities that we believe could
potentially harm the Santa Ana sucker
and result in a violation of section 9 of
the Act include, but are not limited to:
(1) Take of Santa Ana suckers without
a permit, which includes harassing,
harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting,
wounding, killing, trapping, capturing,
or collecting, or attempting any of these
actions;
(2) Possessing, selling, delivering,
carrying, transporting, or shipping
illegally taken Santa Ana suckers;
(3) Unauthorized interstate and
foreign commerce (commerce across
State and international boundaries) and
import/export;
(4) Introduction of nonnative species
that compete or hybridize with, or prey
on Santa Ana suckers;
(5) Unauthorized destruction or
alteration of Santa Ana sucker habitat by
dredging, channelization, diversion,
dewatering through groundwater
withdraw, in-stream vehicle operation
or rock removal, or other activities that
result in the destruction or significant
degradation of cover, channel stability,
substrate composition, water quality,
water temperature, and migratory
corridors; and
(6) Discharging or dumping of toxic
chemicals, silt, organic waste, or other
pollutants (such as may result from
mining, land development or land
management activities) into waters
supporting Santa Ana suckers that
results in death or injury to the species
or results in the destruction or
degradation of cover, channel stability,
substrate composition, water quality,
water temperature, and migratory
corridors used by the species for
foraging, cover, migration, and
spawning.
We will review other activities not
identified above on a case-by-case basis
to determine if a violation of section 9
of the Act may be likely to result from
such activity. We do not consider these
lists to be exhaustive and provide them
as information to the public.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities may constitute a violation of
section 9 should be directed to the Field
Supervisor of the Service’s Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section). Requests for copies of the
regulations regarding listed wildlife and
inquiries about prohibitions and permits
may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,
Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E.
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232–
4181 (telephone 503/231–6241;
facsimile 503/231–6243)
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information other than
those already approved under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and assigned Office of
Management and Budget clearance
number 1018–0094. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid control number. For
additional information concerning
permit and associated requirements for
threatened wildlife, see 50 CFR 17.32.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request from
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this document
is Glen W. Knowles, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend §17.11(h) by adding the
following, in alphabetical order under
FISHES, to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife:
§17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 18:13 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 12APR1
19698 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 71/Wednesday, April 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
Species
Historic range
Vertebrate
population where
endangered or
threatened
Status When listed
Critical
habitat
Special
rulesCommon name Scientific name
FISHES
*******
Sucker, Santa Ana ..Catostomus
santaanae.
U.S.A. (CA) ............ Los Angeles River
basin, San Ga-
briel River basin,
Santa Ana River
basin.
T 694 NA NA
*******
Dated: March 31, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00–8999 Filed 4–11–00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate 20<MAR>2000 17:46 Apr 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 12APR1
Responses to Late Comments
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department Comment Letter 2
Response to Comment SBMWD2-1
This comment on the FEIR does not identify a new impact on the environment or provide new
information on the severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR acknowledges (DEIR
page 3.9-24) that groundwater levels would be lowered in the proximity of the supplemental
water wells. The drawdown caused by these wells is not expected to significantly reduce
groundwater levels at neighboring wells, including at the RIX facility, because of the small
quantities of water that would be extracted at these wells. Contrary to the comment, the FEIR
recognizes that any recharge associated with the river discharge would be downstream of the
Rialto well drawdown.
Valley District has legal responsibility for managing the groundwater basin and ensuring that
that groundwater levels do not drop to unacceptable levels. The performance standard for this
groundwater basin was established in the Western-San Bernardino Judgment (Case No. 78426,
Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County et al. vs. East San Bernardino County
Water District et al.). Pursuant to that judgment, extractions from the Colton Basin Area and the
Riverside North Basin for use within the Valley District service area are not limited, provided
that the average static groundwater surface elevation as measured at wells Johnson #1, Flume #2,
and Flume #5 is not less than 822.04 feet. In the event that static groundwater levels are reduced
below that level, Valley District is obliged to provide replenishment water.
Response to Comment SBMWD2-2
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The SAR Pipeline would be used to convey some or
all of the tertiary-treated effluent to the RIX facility prior to the approval of the HMMP or HCP.
Approval of the HMMP or HCP would render the SAR Pipeline unnecessary to operate the
project, except as may be required by project permits or agreed upon by Valley District and the
City of San Bernardino to help alleviate flow reductions to the Santa Ana River attributable to
the unrelated operation of the water treatment facilities of the San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department. Valley District fully expects the HMMP to be approved by the USFWS as part of
the Section 7 Formal Consultation process and implementation of the mitigation measures would
begin immediately following issuance of a Biological Opinion regardless if the HCP is finalized
by that time or not. Since the HMMP is a scaled subset of measures included in the larger HCP
Conservation Strategy, any mitigation measures completed by the HMMP in advance of the HCP
will serve as a foundation for implementation of the HCP conservation activities.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 1 of 15
Response to Comment SBMWD2-3
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR acknowledges that TDS levels in the
effluent may be higher than the existing assimilative capacity of the Bunker Hill A Basin. To
mitigate this, the FEIR acknowledges that additional blend water may be required for use of the
East Twin Creek spreading grounds. The FEIR concludes that approval from the RWQCB and
potentially an antidegradation analysis would be necessary to implement the project in Bunker
Hill A Basin. The comment ignores the information provided in Table 11-1 (page 11-71) of the
FEIR, which shows that there is sufficient assimilative capacity Bunker Hill B Basin to
accommodate the project. As noted in the DEIR, the determination of how much water will be
recharged in Bunker Hill A (City Creek and Redlands Basins) and how much will be recharged
in Bunker Hill B (East Twin Creek spreading grounds) will be determined through the permitting
process with the RWQCB.
Valley District and EVWD staff has met with the RWQCB on several occasions to discuss the
project. The RWQCB has indicated that it would require increased blend water or reduced
discharge to comply with groundwater quality dependent on the discharge location strategy
(amounts discharged to Bunker Hill A vs. Bunker Hill B). The FEIR concludes that the project is
feasible based on consultations with the RWQCB and State DDW and that ultimately the
protection of the groundwater quality would be ensured through the rigorous permit
requirements.
Response to Comment SBMWD2-4
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR concludes that adherence to the stringent
water quality objectives of the Basin Plan including TDS assimilative capacity limits and the
potential preparation of an anti-degradation analysis would ensure consistency with the Basin
Plan and maintenance of acceptable groundwater quality. The comment speculates that meeting
water quality objectives could lead to degradation over time. This is an incorrect statement; the
water quality objectives functions as performance standards for groundwater basin quality and so
recharge that meets those objectives, as determined by the RWQCB in issuing a permit, will not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Thus, as noted in the FEIR, compliance
with the water quality objectives ensures that degradation would not occur since the permits will
require blending and waste loading limitations.
Response to Comment SBMWD2-5
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The use of assimilative capacity in the groundwater
basin, as noted above, represents recharge of the groundwater basin in a manner that meets the
performance standards developed and enforced by the RWQCB, the agency with expertise in
regulating the recharge of groundwater basins and charged with the responsibility to maintain
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 2 of 15
water quality in those basins. Thus, as indicated in the responses to comments SBMWD2-3 and
SBMWD2-4, the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the groundwater basin.
Response to Comment SBMWD2-6
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR states that treatment modification
necessary to comply with discharge permit requirements would be implemented based on the
adaptive management (reflecting water quality data collected through the monitoring program) in
a manner that meets the water quality objectives, as determined by the RWQCB. As noted in the
FEIR, these treatment modifications would be determined by the identified pollutant in
compliance with Title 22 regulations. Adaptive management to meet a performance standard is a
well-established strategy to avoid adverse impacts on the environment from a project.
Response to Comment SBMWD2-7
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR acknowledges that discharge of the wells
would require a discharge permit that would include water quality testing necessary to ensure
adequate water quality. The FEIR anticipates that groundwater quality will be acceptable
considering the existing uses of local groundwater in Rialto.
Response to Comment SBMWD2-8
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The Reduced Discharge Alternative would not
eliminate a significant impact of the project. The FEIR reasonably assumes that impacts from
the Reduced Discharge Alternative would require commensurately less mitigation acreage. This
would include less microhabitat improvements, less exotic weed removal and fewer acres
receiving ongoing predator control. In addition, consistent with the updated Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. The Reduced Discharge Alternative
would provide less RAFSS mitigation than the proposed project. The USFWS has indicated in
its comment letter that the full suite of mitigation measures proposed by Valley District are of
great importance to the SAS because they address the many stressors for that species and other
native fish.
Response to Comment SBMWD2-9
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The Reduced Discharge Alternative would result in
half the hydrology effects downstream of the RIX discharge requiring half the biological
mitigation. The FEIR concludes that the proposed mitigation, specifically BIO-3, would provide
benefits to the existing condition. The Reduced Discharge Alternative would result in half the
benefits compared to the proposed project.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 3 of 15
San Bernardino County Department of Public Works Comment Letter 2
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-1
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR acknowledges in Table 2-9 that a 408
permit from the USACE may be required to install discharge facilities through existing levees.
This includes the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds levees. Valley District would consult with
the USACE to facilitate the permit to ensure that flood control objectives are protected.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-2
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4 explicitly commits
Valley District to preparing a plan to manage vegetation introduced into the creek by the
perennial flow “to minimize impacts to flood control function of the creek.”
The comment further indicates that vegetation will not be allowed that will reduce the hydraulic
capacity and the level of flood protection provided by the system. More accurately stated, the
past policy of the Department of Public Works encourages co-locating habitat and flood control
features where they can successfully coexist. The prime example of successful co-location is
found in the Santa Ana River floodplain adjacent to the Valley District headquarters. At that
location, a riparian forest planted by the Department of Public Works extends across almost the
entire mainstem of the Santa Ana River, which is one of the primary flood control features
managed by the Department of Public Works. Valley District understands that this riparian
forest was planted, and is maintained, as mitigation for the San Timoteo Creek Flood Control
Project in cooperation with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thus, Valley District's
mitigation strategy for the proposed project adopts the County's successful example, and would
anticipate the same full support of both the County and the Corps.
The comment also states that conversions of habitat within the City Creek watershed would be
highly detrimental to listed species. In the present circumstances, however, Valley District's
conservation strategy is consistent with the USFWS' recovery strategy for the Santa Ana sucker
and has received favorable comments from the USFWS in response to the draft EIR. The
USFWS' comments support Valley District’s proposal to convert low quality RAFSS habitat to
riparian habitat on the condition that Valley District mitigate 1:1 for temporary and 3:1 for
permanent impacts, which the project has committed to do.
Finally, the comment indicates that Valley District is over-mitigating for the effects of the
project. Under CEQA, the lead agency has discretion to be more protective of the environment
than is legally required. Valley District has chosen that course of action.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 4 of 15
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-3
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been updated to
clarify the temporary and permanent RAFSS habitat replacement ratios. The mitigation measure
was updated with input from the CDFW and USFWS. The FEIR acknowledges in Table 2-9 that
consultation with CDFW and USFWS would be required.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-4
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that cooperation
with the County would be necessary to utilize County facilities. The FEIR outlines substantial
benefits of the proposed project, as acknowledged by the USFWS comment letter, including
habitat improvements for Santa Ana sucker, additional riparian habitat from the upstream
discharges, and a drought proof regional water supply.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-5
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The addition of perennial water into City Creek
would not be detrimental to Critical Habitat in City Creek since the fish need water to utilize the
creek segment. The establishment of aquatic and riparian vegetation does not deter the use of
creek segments by Santa Ana sucker, but rather makes occupation feasible. See response to
comments SBCDPW2-2 and SBCDPW2-4.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-6
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. Santa Ana sucker critical habitat was designated in
City Creek for the sediment transport process, which is not likely to be affected by the amount of
new riparian vegetation resulting from this project, which would, as stated above, be managed in
a manner consistent with hydraulic capacity and flood control. The addition of perennial water
and growth of riparian vegetation in City Creek would not adversely modify Critical Habitat in
City Creek because only very large storm events have enough energy to transport of gravel and
cobble substrate approximately ten miles downstream to occupied sucker habitat. It is unlikely
that riparian vegetation in the channel would dissipate the flow regime of this size storm events
such that sediment transport was prevented or even greatly reduced. Flows of this magnitude
would still move gravel and cobble downstream providing periodic replenishment of coarse
substrate materials downstream.
Additionally, critical habitat also lists water as a primary constituent element necessary for the
persistence of the species. This project would extend the perennially wet habitat within City
Creek, thus offering new ecological value to a reach of designated critical habitat that was
previously identified for process only. This activity could support the viability of an established
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 5 of 15
population further upstream in City Creek (on Forest Service lands) which would increase the
distribution, range, and resiliency of the population, therefore increasing its chances of recovery.
See response to comments SBCDPW2-2 and SBCDPW2-4.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-7
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. As initially proposed, Mitigation Measures Bio-1
and Bio-2 required Valley District to determine whether impact avoidance is feasible and, if not,
to quantify the impacted acreage in project impact areas, and, through the Biological Assessment
process, quantify compensation requirements for affected plant and wildlife species. Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 has been modified to amplify that requirement by establishing 1:1 temporary and
3:1 permanent RAFSS habitat impact compensation ratios.
See response to comments SBCDPW2-2 and SBCDPW2-4.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-8
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4 requires that Valley
District coordinate the vegetation management plan with CDFW and SBCFCD.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-9
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The FEIR recognizes in Table 2-9 that cooperation
with the County would be necessary to utilize County facilities. The project would not result in
any County lands “gifted” to Valley District, because as noted above, the cooperation between
the Department of Public Works and Valley District would benefit both public agencies and the
constituents that they serve. The project would provide regional benefits to public trust assets as
well as water supply. See response to comments SBCDPW2-2 and SBCDPW2-4.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-10
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The conclusion that allowing Valley District to use
Flood Control lands is illegal is incorrect. As noted above, as long as there are benefits to the
Department, such cooperation is not only legal but encouraged by a variety of different laws.
See response to comments SBCDPW2-2 and SBCDPW2-4.
Response to Comment SBCDPW2-11
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. See response to comments SBCDPW2-2,
SBCDPW2-4, and SBCDPW2-10.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 6 of 15
Anthony Serrano, Oral Comments at March 10, 2016, Workshop of Board of Directors of
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Includes Memorandum dated March 10,
2016)
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 1:
The commenter expressed concerns that the costs of the project have not been disclosed and that
a cost-benefit analysis of the project has not been provided. The commenter also indicated that
he might pursue legislation to make the disclosure of costs mandatory. Finally, the commenter
expressed concerns as to the quality of the legal advice being provided to Valley District,
particularly on the cost issue.
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 1:
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. CEQA concerns direct and indirect impacts to the
physical environment. An EIR must evaluate the environmental impacts of a project. Public
Resources Code section 21100. As corollary principles, CEQA Guidelines section 15131(a)
instructs that a project’s economic effects “shall not be treated as significant effects on the
environment” and that the “focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes [to the
environment].”CEQA Guidelines section 15358(b) also confirms that the impacts analyzed in
an EIR must be “related to a physical change.”Economic effects that are not related to physical
impacts need not be evaluated.Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley
(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430 (social, economic and business compensation concerns are not
relevant under CEQA unless it is shown that they bear directly in EIR’s analysis of effects on the
physical environment).
Even though project costs and a cost-benefit analysis are not components of CEQA’s required
review of environmental impacts, certain costs may properly become pertinent to an EIR’s
discussion of “feasibility.”A project need only implement mitigation measures and consider
project alternatives that are feasible. CEQA Guidelines sections 15021, 15126.6, and 15092.
“Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological
factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364. However, in the case of the SNRC, the EIR does not
reject proposed mitigation measures or project alternatives on the basis of undue expense. Issues
of project cost simply do not bear, even in the context of feasibility, on the environmental
conclusions reached in the EIR.
Nonetheless, the costs of the SNRC have been made available to the Valley District decision
makers and to the public. As was stated in the FEIR Response to Serrano-1, Appendix J of the
EIR, entitled An Update to the Recycled Water Feasibility Study 2015, identifies the anticipated
project costs as well as the anticipated economic benefits in its Chapter 12, Economic
Evaluation. Both capital and operating costs were projected, as well as economic benefits that
might be expected to arise from the project. A forecast was included of potential cost savings
from the project over 20 years, which will directly benefit all EVWD ratepayers, who reside in
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 7 of 15
the cities of Highland and San Bernardino and pockets of unincorporated areas, and will
indirectly benefit the region.
Contrary to the commenter’s statement that a cost-benefit study of the SNRC must be included in
the EIR, the California judiciary has expressly considered and rejected the contention that a cost-
benefit analysis is a CEQA obligation:“Appellants also argue that an EIR is incomplete if it
does not contain cost-benefit computations. Neither the EQA nor the National Environmental
Policy Act requires computation of a cost-benefit ratio. Such studies may be useful, but they are
not indispensable to an environmental impact statement.”San Francisco Ecology Center. v. City
& County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal. App.3d 584, 595. Following this and the other legal
precedents identified above is appropriate legal advice.
Finally, representatives of Valley District and East Valley Water District have met with staff at
the State Water Resources Control Board, who have informed them that the SNRC project is
well-placed to receive 100% capital financing through a combination of grants and loans. This
favorable financing, if obtained, would further accentuate the feasibility of the project.
In terms of the commenter proposing legislation to make the disclosure of costs mandatory, such
legislation would be outside the scope of the project and outside the scope of CEQA, so no
response to that comment is necessary.
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 2:
The commenter stated that the materials submitted with his February 25th, 2016 letter include
information that requires recirculation of the EIR. Specifically identified were concerns over
groundwater contamination from legacy plumes.
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 2:
Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines requires recirculation only when significant new
information is added to the EIR after the draft EIR is made available but before certification of
the Final EIR. New information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR has changed in
a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial
adverse, environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
that the project’s proponents have declined to implement (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5).
In summary, significant new information consists of: (1) disclosure of a new significant impact;
(2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) disclosure
of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others
previously analyzed that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project but the
project proponent declines to adopt it; and/or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and
basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were
precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5).
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 8 of 15
None of the comments or materials submitted by this commenter: (1) disclose a new significant
impact of the SNRC project; (2) disclose a substantial increase in the severity of an impact
identified in the EIR; (3) propose a project alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly
lessen the SNRC project’s impacts; or (4) disclose that the EIR failed to include information
necessary for meaningful public review of and comment on the environmental analysis of the
SNRC project. Instead, the comments and submitted materials address social, economic, or
political issues but not environmental impacts and therefore under CEQA need not be analyzed
in an EIR, or refer to environmental issues that are in fact analyzed in the EIR, or address other
projects that are separate from and not proposed in connection with the SNRC project.
Of particular note, the comment indicated that the EIR fails to discuss the potential impacts of
the project on and intersection of the project with the Wash Plan Habitat Conservation Plan
(Wash Plan HCP) which is a collaborative effort of a number of public agencies, including
Valley District, with the State of California and the United States to preserve habitat for the
SBKR and other listed species. Moreover, the comment indicated that the SNRC project should
analyze a collector pipeline for the proposed Harmony development in the City of Highland,
which would, according to the comment, run through the area to be protected by the Wash Plan
HCP.
It is important to understand the environmental relationship between the SNRC project, the Wash
Plan HCP, and the Harmony project. The purpose of the SNRC project is to provide an
additional reliable source of water to replenish the groundwater basin, totaling over 6,000 acre-
feet/year. The SNRC project and its associated facilities would not be constructed in any of the
area that would be covered by the Wash Plan HCP; thus, the SNRC project is entirely consistent
with the Wash Plan HCP. This should not be surprising, because Valley District is one of the
agencies working to implement that HCP.
In terms of the Harmony project, CEQA requires that the lead agency for that unrelated project
(probably the City of Highland) analyze all of the direct and indirect physical effects of that
proposal on the environment. If the Harmony project chooses to discharge its wastewater to the
SNRC facilities, the City of Highland (or the lead agency for that project) will need to analyze
alternative pipeline routes to collect wastewater and deliver that wastewater to the SNRC
facilities. If that pipeline were to be sited to cross the lands included in the Wash Plan HCP, that
EIR would need to analyze the effects of pipeline construction on the sensitive habitat being
protected by that HCP. However, the SNRC project does not propose the construction of such a
pipeline; indeed, the SNRC has no connection to the Harmony project. The SNRC project can
(and is proposed to) proceed regardless of whether or not the Harmony project is ever built.
Thus, CEQA does not require the EIR for the SNRC project to analyze the effects of the
Harmony project. See response to comments Anthony Serrano –Oral Comments 5 and 6 below.
Finally, in terms of the legacy contamination plumes in the groundwater basin, the DEIR and the
FEIR acknowledge that there are a number of such plumes in the groundwater basin. However,
as indicated in the responses to RPU-1in the FEIR, the recharge of recycled water would be
managed in such a way so as to avoid affecting contaminant plumes or affecting drinking water
wells. Indeed, demonstrating that recharging a groundwater basin would not have such effects is
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 9 of 15
part of the showing that Valley District would need to make to the RWQCB to obtain the permit
to recharge the groundwater basin. Thus, the project would only proceed if the regulatory
agency with expertise in groundwater management permits the use of recycled water to recharge
the groundwater basin.
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 3:
The commenter opined that members of the public are subject to too many costs imposed by
special districts, including for example costs associated with the local community college district
and its bonds. The commenter also referred to a comic video indicating that there is too little
oversight for special districts. Finally, the commenter noted an article urging members of the
public to make comments on an environmental document early and often.
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 3:
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. As noted in response to Oral Comment-1, the cost
of a project is not an environmental impact that needs to be discussed in an EIR. More
importantly, the proposed SNRC project is not responsible for the existence of special districts
that impose costs on the commenter or any other member of the public. Any problems
associated with the existence of numerous and potentially overlapping special districts are
political issues for the California Legislature to resolve and analysis of such problems is not
required by CEQA. In particular, the fact that the local community college district has issued
bonds with escalating costs is not an environmental issue that the SNRC EIR is required to
analyze.
In terms of the video that was submitted, this was a comic video that posed the question of
whether or not special districts are subject to sufficient state or federal oversight/control. That
type of political issue, as noted above, is not directly related to a physical impact on the
environment, which is the focus of CEQA. Thus, Valley District notes the comment but
responds that the issue is beyond the scope of the current proceedings.
Lastly, in terms of the advice from a lawyer to make comments on an environmental document
early and often, Valley District notes that receiving public comments is the purpose of the very
public CEQA process and that the commenter has ably taken this advice to heart.
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 4:
The commenter asserted that the project requires an EIR/EIS due to the partial federal
involvement associated with the State Revolving Fund loans and because there is a federal nexus
through the SBIAA to the FAA.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 10 of 15
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 4:
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. As the State Water Resources Control Board
receives partial funding from the EPA for the State Revolving Fund it acts as an agent for the
federal government and imposes CEQA-Plus requirements. This EIR was prepared in accordance
with the CEQA-Plus guidelines and therefore the document is NEPA compliant.
Confirming this conclusion, Valley District has met with State officials regarding NEPA
compliance several times in connection with the effort to ensure that the project qualifies for
state funding (as described in the response to comment Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 1).
In the course of those meetings, State Water Resources Control Board staff have thoroughly
reviewed the project and the EIR to determine whether the project would quality for such
funding (including CEQA-Plus/NEPA compliance). State Water Resources Control Board staff
have informed Valley District that they believe that the project meets all of the CEQA-
Plus/NEPA obligations of a partially federally funded project. Therefore, a separate EIS is not
required.
In terms of the federal nexus to the SBIAA and FAA, there is no federal funding for the project
other than through the State Water Resources Control Board, as discussed above, and so there is
no federal nexus to SBIAA and the FAA based on federal funding. Nor is any federal permit or
license from the FAA needed for the construction and operation of the project. The SNRC
facilities have been designed and will be constructed in accordance with FAA standards and
therefore the proximity of the SBIAA to the project site does not trigger NEPA.
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 5:
The commenter expressed concern that due to the SNRC project current ratepayers will bear the
cost of the providing wastewater treatment services to the proposed Harmony development.
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 5:
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR.
See response to comment Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 2. The SNRC project does not
include a connection to the proposed Harmony development. The SNRC and the Harmony
project are separate and distinct projects with independent utility, and neither depends upon or
will result from the other. If the Harmony development goes forward the lead agency for that
project will be required to analyze the impacts of the development and mitigate those impacts,
including whatever water and wastewater services it may propose, and the developer will be
required to fund and build all infrastructure associated with the Harmony development in
accordance with AB1600.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 11 of 15
It is also important to understand that California law prevents a local agency, whether it is the
City of Highland or East Valley Water District, from “cross-subsidizing” utility services. In
other words, California Constitution article XIII (among a number of different legal
requirements) prevents local governments from having existing ratepayers pay a portion of the
costs associated with serving new development. Existing ratepayers must pay the proportional
cost of service to provide utility services to their properties and new development must pay the
proportional cost of service for that new development. Thus, if the Harmony project were to
proceed, as noted above, the developer would be forced to fund and build all of the infrastructure
required by that development. The costs of that infrastructure would then be placed on the
homeowners in that development, not existing ratepayers.
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 6:
The commenter pointed out that the EIR does not acknowledge or consider the Wash Plan
Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan) or how the proposed Harmony development could
potentially impact the Wash Plan. The commenter also suggested combining the environmental
documents for the Wash Plan HCP, the Harmony project, this project and potentially other
projects in the area.
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 6:
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR.
See response to Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 2 above. As noted above, the SNRC project
does not include a connection to the proposed Harmony development, and so the SNRC does not
need to address the impacts of the proposed Harmony development. No SNRC facilities are
located within the Wash Plan boundaries and so none of the SNRC project’s impacts will affect
the Wash Plan. Moreover, the Wash Plan is located upstream of the SNRC project impact area
and so will not be affected by either the reduction of flow from the Santa Ana River nor the
discharge of tertiary treated wastewater into recharge locations.
In terms of combining the environmental documents for a number of different projects, CEQA
commits that decision to the discretion of the agencies involved. All environmental documents
must include, as was done in the DEIR and FEIR, a discussion of the cumulative impacts on the
environment of all reasonably foreseeable past, present and future projects that might relate to
the current project. However, there is no obligation to prepare a single environmental document.
Indeed, it is often the case, as here, that projects are proceeding on very different schedules, with
very different objectives and lead agencies. When that is the case, neither CEQA nor NEPA
require a single environmental document.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 12 of 15
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 7:
The commenter claimed that the SNRC project is not a use compatible with the San Bernardino
International Airport, and that background noise from the airport will adversely affect SNRC
employees.
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 7:
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. The SNRC has been designed for compatible use
with the SBIA and is fully compliant with FAA requirements for development around an airport.
The SNRC will be built in full compliance with building code and OSHA requirements designed
to protect workers from noise, including noise generated by the plant as well as background
airport noise.
Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment 8:
The commenter proposed a mitigation measure involving the consolidation of regional water
agencies to offset costs of this project.
Anthony Serrano –Response to Oral Comment 8:
As in noted in response to Anthony Serrano –Oral Comment above, the cost of a project is not a
significant environmental effect that must be mitigated under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §
15126.4(a)(1)(A) [Discussion of mitigation measures “shall identify mitigation measures for
each significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.”] [emphasis added].)In any case,
the authority referred to in the comment (SB 88, which was enacted in 2015) grants the authority
to consolidate local water agencies to the State Water Resources Control Board, not any of the
agencies involved in the SNRC. Given that the feasibility analysis referenced in response to
Anthony Serrano Oral Comment 1 above indicates that the costs for ratepayers within East
Valley Water District will be less with the project than currently, it appears that the mitigation
measure would not be necessary. Finally, the consolidation of water agencies is beyond the
scope of the project and not related to a physical change in the environment caused by the
project.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 13 of 15
Anthony Serrano Post-FEIR Emailed Comments (Serrano 3)
Comment Serrano 3-1
The comment refers to a video excerpt regarding special districts from the comedy show “Last
Week Tonight John Oliver” and asserts that the video supports the commenters concerns about
costs.
Response to Comment Serrano 3-1
See responses to Oral Comments 1 and 3.
Comment Serrano 3-2
The comment states that the EIR does not include any costs “for the ‘cost/benefit scenarios for
the mitigation of alternatives,’” and asks how the Lead Agency will provide cost information
pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21001(g) if it is not included in the EIR.
Response to Comment Serrano 3-2
See responses to Oral Comments 1 and 3, above, and Serrano-1 (Final EIR). In addition, the
Staff Report for the Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR contains a summary discussion of the
costs of the project, noting that the costs of the project to ratepayers within East Valley Water
District are likely to be less than the costs of current wastewater treatment.
Comment Serrano 3-3
The comment notes that three other projects in the area are undergoing environmental review and
suggests that it would be more efficient and cost-effective to have one consultant address all of
the projects.
Response to Comment Serrano 3-3
This comment on the FEIR does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the
severity of an impact identified in the FEIR. CEQA does not require separate and independent
projects to be addressed in a single environmental document. See responses to Oral Comment 6,
above, and Serrano-2 (Final EIR).
Comment Serrano 3-4
The comment expresses concern that the above-referenced EIRs do not identify cost savings that
could be achieved by consolidating or eliminating water agencies.
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 14 of 15
Response to Comment Serrano 3-4
See responses to Oral Comments 1 and 8, above, and Serrano 2-6 (Final EIR)
1438268.2
Responses to Late Comments
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 15 of 15
Additional Responses to Comments Received after FEIR Release
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 1 of 2
Additional Responses to Comments Received after FEIR Release
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (3/14/16)
The comment letter is similar to the City’s draft letter dated 3/10/16 with some additional discussion
including concerns regarding the cost of the project.As discussed in responses to Serrano below, CEQA
pertains to the environmental impacts of the project and does not require economic or financial analysis
except as may be relevant to explain an infeasible mitigation measure or project alternative, or an
economic impact that leads to a physical change to the environment .Such economic concerns are not
raised by the comment letter or by the EIR.Thus, the comment letter does not raise any environmental
issue not already addressed in the previous responses to comments.The comment letter does not
identify any new impact or provide new information on the severity of an impact.
Socal Environmental Justice Alliance,Craig Collins, Blum/Collins LLP (3/14/16)
The comment notes the USFWS Rule listing the Santa Ana sucker and requests clarification on the timing
of mitigation.The comment letter does not raise any environmental issue not already addressed in the
previous responses to comments.The comment letter does not identify any new impact or provide new
information on the severity of an impact.The timing of mitigation will be consistent with all permit
requirements and with the guidance of the regulators, recognizing that there may be instances where
mitigation is required to precede project activity and other times where mitigation follows, or restores,
after project activity.Valley District and East Valley Water District have agreed to include the Final Rule
listing the Santa Ana sucker in the administrative record for the project.
Anthony Serrano (3/15/16)
The comment letter focuses on project financing.The comment letter does not raise any environmental
issue not already addressed in the previous responses to comments.The comment letter does not
identify any new impact or provide new information on the severity of an impact.As a general rule,
project costs and financing are not environmental issues. Costs and financing become relevant to CEQA
when they are the basis for a conclusion that a mitigation measure or project alternative is infeasible or
when an economic impact leads to a physical change to the environment. Conclusions of financial
infeasibility of a mitigation measure or project alternative are not raised by the EIR, nor are conclusions
that an economic impact of the project will lead to a physical change to the environment .
Notwithstanding this appropriate CEQA analysis, information regarding project costs and financing has
been made publicly available to the decisionmakers for their consideration, not to certify the EIR but for
their approval of the project.Any dispute about the adequacy of that information as a basis for the
decision to proceed with the project is outside the scope of CEQA.
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (3/15/16)
The comment letter addresses the SBVMWD Recycled Water Study.The comment letter does not raise
any environmental issue not already addressed in the previous responses to comments.The comment
Additional Responses to Comments Received after FEIR Release
Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR
March 2016
Page 1 of 2
letter does not identify any new impact or provide new information on the severity of an impact.The
comment addresses the perceived concerns about the recycled water study (which was completed after
the release of the Final EIR and which has independent utility from the project) and in particular
contends that the economic and financial analysis contained in the recycled water study is incorrect.
The questions raised in the comment are not claims that the analysis of the project’s impacts on the
environment is inadequate under CEQA; instead, they are outside the scope of CEQA and the project
EIR.
12. Clarifications and Modifications
TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Aesthetics
3.1-1: The project would have a significant impact
if it would have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.1-2: The project could have a significant impact
if it would substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
3.1-3: The project would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings.
AES-1: Aboveground buildings/structures associated with the
proposed SNRC shall be designed to be consistent with the aesthetic
qualities of existing structures in the surrounding area to minimize
contrasting features.
AES-2: During project design, a landscape plan shall be prepared for
the SNRC that restores disturbed areas and minimizes effects to
local character. Valley District shall implement and maintain the
landscape plan.
Significant Less than significant
3.1-4: The project would not have a significant
impact due to substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views
in the area.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
3.2-1: The project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.2-2: The project would not conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
3.2-3: The project would not conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land,
timberland or timberland zoned Timberland
Production.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-3 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.2-4: The project would not result in the loss of
forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
3.2-5: The project would not involve other
changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
None required No Impact Not Applicable
Air Quality
3.3-1: The project could conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.3-2: The project could violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation.
AIR-1: For off-road construction equipment greater than 50 HP, all
engines shall be certified as USEPA Tier 3 at a minimum and Tier 4
where available.
Significant Significant and
unavoidable for
construction; Less than
significant for operations.
3.3-3: The program could result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).
AIR-1 Significant Significant and
unavoidable for NOx
emissions
3.3-4: The project could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
None required Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.3-5: The proposed program could create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
AIR-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement an Odor Impact
Minimization Plan that includes a monitoring and reporting plan. The
plan shall include the following elements at a minimum:
• Identification of responsible parties
• Description of odor control system design and performance
standards
• Odor control system operations plan
• Identification of fence-line odor monitoring and reporting
program
• Achievable odor remediation actions and implementation
protocol
• Local community outreach program
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-4 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-2 Significant Significant and
unavoidable for short-term
impacts
Biological Resources
3.4-1: Construction and operation of the project
could have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications on plant
and wildlife species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
CDFW or USFWS.
BIO-1: Disturbance to Special-Status Plants. The following
measures will reduce potential project-related impacts to special-
status plant species that may occur adjacent to the project site within
City Creek to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from the construction of the pipeline extension
and discharge structure within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or
the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds.
a) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands
Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a
focused botanical survey will be conducted to determine the
presence/absence of any of the special-status species with a
moderate or high potential to occur. The focused botanical
survey will be conducted by a botanist or qualified biologist
knowledgeable in the identification of local special-status plant
species, and according to accepted protocol outlined by the
CNPS and/or CDFW.
b) If a special status state or federally listed plant species is
discovered in a project impact area, informal consultation with
CDFW and/or USFWS will be required prior to the impact
occurring to develop an appropriate avoidance strategy.
Depending on the sensitivity of the species, relocation, site
restoration, or other habitat improvement actions may be an
acceptable option to avoid significant impacts, as determined
through consultation with the resource agencies.
c) If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not
feasible, Valley District shall quantify the impacted acreage
supporting state or federally-listed plant species within the
construction area and estimated perennial flow area and
prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State
Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall
quantify compensation requirements for affected plants
species. Valley District shall implement the conservation
measures and compensation requirements identified through
consultation by USACE with both CDFW and USFWS.
d) Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and
operation of the discharge including within the City Creek
channel resulting from perennial flow shall require on-site
replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in
consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to
Significant Significant and
unavoidable for
modifications to Santa Ana
sucker habitat.
Less than significant with
mitigation for other impacts
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-5 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in
consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
BIO-2: Disturbance to Special-Status Wildlife. The following
measures will reduce potential project-related impacts to special-
status wildlife species that may occur within disturbed and native
habitats, to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from construction of the SNRC, construction of
the discharge structures within City Creek and other discharge
locations, and perennial discharges to City Creek or other discharge
locations.
a) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek or other
discharge locations, Valley District shall conduct focused
surveys within the project impact areas to determine if any
state or federally-listed wildlife species (southwestern willow
flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, and least Bell’s vireo) are located within project
impact areas. Focused surveys will be conducted by a qualified
and/or permitted biologist, following approved survey protocol.
Survey results will be forwarded to CDFW and USFWS. If state
or federally-listed species are determined to occur on the
project site with the potential to be impacted by the project,
consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required.
b) If impact avoidance is not feasible, Valley District shall quantify
the impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed
wildlife species within the construction area and estimated
perennial flow area and prepare a Biological Assessment
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The
Biological Assessment shall quantify compensation
requirements for affected wildlife species. Valley District shall
implement the conservation measures and compensation
requirements identified through consultation by USACE with
both CDFW and USFWS.
c) Prior to the start of construction of the SNRC building and the
recycled water pipeline along 6th Street, focused burrowing owl
surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence/absence
of burrowing owl adjacent to the project area. The focused
burrowing owl survey must be conducted by a qualified
biologist and following the survey guidelines included in the
CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If
burrowing owl is observed within undeveloped habitat within or
immediately adjacent to the project impact area,
avoidance/minimization measures would be required such as
establishing a suitable buffer around the nest (typically 500-
feet) and monitoring during construction, or delaying
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-6 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
construction until after the nest is no longer active and the
burrowing owls have left. However, if burrowing owl avoidance
is infeasible, a qualified biologist shall implement a passive
relocation program in accordance with the Example
Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion
Plans of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).
d) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, pre-
construction site clearing surveys will be conducted of the
project impact area within natural habitats. Any special status
ground-dwelling wildlife will be removed from the immediate
impact area and released in the nearby area.
e) Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and
operation of the discharge including within City Creek channel
resulting from perennial flow shall require on-site replacement
or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in consultation
with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat
would be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in consultation with
CDFW and USFWS.
BIO-3: Disturbance to Santa Ana Sucker. The following measures
will reduce potential project-related impacts to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for impacts to Santa Ana sucker while contributing to the
long-term conservation of the species.
a) The diversion of wastewater flow to the new SNRC shall not
occur until either the Upper Santa Ana HCP has been fully
executed by the USFWS and CDFW or Valley District’s SAS
HMMP has been approved by the USFWS and CDFW.
b) The Valley District will be a signatory to the Upper SAR HCP
that will include the proposed project as a covered activity. The
HCP will include a menu of projects to be implemented by the
signatory agencies that will create habitat, restore habitat, and
establish self-sustaining populations in the watershed. The
HCP will be approved by the CDFW and USFWS.
c) In the event that the Upper Santa Ana River HCP is not
approved in time to meet the project schedule, Valley District
shall prepare and implement a SAS Habitat Monitoring and
Management Plan (HMMP) that identifies habitat improvement
actions, implementation methods, monitoring, and
maintenance methods. The HMMP will consist of measures
listed below to offset direct and indirect impacts to the Santa
Ana sucker and its habitat resulting from the loss of 6 MGD of
discharged water. The HMMP will be implemented by a
contracted, qualified and permitted entity such as the
Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) in
coordination with the USFWS and CDFW. The HMMP will
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-7 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
identify the goals and performance criteria of each
conservation measure and will identify annual reporting and
work forecasting requirements. The HMMP will be approved by
the USFWS and CDFW under their authority to enforce the
federal and state Endangered Species Acts. The proposed
diversion of 6 MGD from the RIX discharge will not occur until
the HMMP has been approved by USFWS and CDFW. The
HMMP will include the following elements.
• SAS -1: Microhabitat Enhancements. The HMMP will
identify microhabitat enhancements within the upstream
reach of the affected river segment using natural materials
to increase scour and pool formation. This could include
placement of large boulders and/or large woody debris to
increase velocity of flow and gravel bar patches as well as
deep pool refugia areas.
• SAS -2: Aquatic Predator Control Program. The HMMP
will include an Aquatic Predator Control Program to be
implemented within the upstream reach of the affected
river segment that will target and remove exotic fish,
amphibians, and reptiles immediately prior to the SAS
spawning season.
• SAS -3: Exotic Weed Management Program. The HMMP
will include an Exotic Weed Management Program
targeting the removal of non-native species such as
tamarisk, castor bean, tree of heaven, etc. The HMMP will
include an annual maintenance and performance goal for
non-native plant removal within the upper reach of the
affected river segment.
• SAS -4: High Flow Pulse Events. The HMMP will identify
means to create high flow pulse events as needed based
on substrate conditions, up to 2 times per year. The high
flow pulse events would be implemented through a
cooperative agreement with the City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department.
• SAS -5: Supplemental Water. Valley District will increase
habitat availability in Rialto Channel during the summer
months by providing cool supplemental water from nearby
groundwater source to lower the water temperature in this
tributary. Supplemental water will be added to the Rialto
Channel when water temperatures reach 85 degrees.
Supplemental water could be pumped groundwater or
other water source. The discharge into the Rialto Drain will
require a discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-8 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
• SAS-6: Upper Watershed SAS Population
Establishment. The HMMP will outline a plan for
establishing a population of Santa Ana sucker in City
Creek, or other suitable watershed tributary, in coordination
with the Wildlife Agencies. The HMMP will identify
measures to directly increase the number of Santa Ana
sucker in the SAR population, increase the amount of
suitable and occupied habitat in this watershed, and
distribute the risk of a catastrophic event between multiple
locations. The HMMP will identify the goals and success
criteria of the establishment plan and will identify the
amount of financial assistance to be provided by Valley
District for the regionally-beneficial population
establishment program.
• SAS -7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring
program to collect hydrology data in the segment of river
between the RIX discharge and Mission Boulevard. The
data will include flow velocity and depth.
3.4-2: Construction of the project could result in
potential direct and indirect impacts to riparian
habitat and other sensitive natural communities
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
BIO-4: Construction Best Management Practices. The Contractor
shall implement the following Best Management Practices during
construction of the pipeline and discharge structure adjacent to and
within City Creek to protect any adjacent sensitive natural
communities that provide habitat for special-status species.
a. The following water quality protection measures shall be
implemented during construction:
• Stationary engines, such as compressors, generators, light
plants, etc., shall have drip pans beneath them to prevent
any leakage from entering runoff or receiving waters.
• All construction equipment shall be inspected for leaks and
maintained regularly to avoid soil contamination. Leaks and
smears of petroleum products will be wiped clean prior to
use.
• Any grout waste or spills will be cleaned up immediately
and disposed of off-site.
• Spill kits capable of containing hazardous spills will be
stored on-site.
b. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of common and special-
status wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep-walled
holes or trenches more than two-feet deep shall be covered
with tarp, plywood or similar materials at the close of each
working day to prevent animals from being trapped. Ramps
may be constructed of earth fill or wooden planks within deep
walled trenches to allow for animals to escape, if necessary.
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-9 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Before such holes or trenches are backfilled, they should be
thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If trapped wildlife are
observed, escape ramps or structures shall be installed
immediately to allow escape.
All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are
stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods
should be thoroughly inspected for burrowing owls and nesting
birds before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or
otherwise used or moved.
3.4-3: Construction of the project could result in a
substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA,
as well as wetland waters of the State regulated
by the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Act
and also CDFW under Section 1600 of CFG
Code, through direct removal of water and
hydrological interruption
None required Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.4-4: Construction of the project could result in
the interference with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites.
BIO-5: To minimize potential construction-related project impacts to
avian species that may be nesting on or immediately adjacent to the
project area, the following measures will reduce any potential impact
to a less than significant level.
a. To avoid potential impacts to birds that may be nesting on or
immediately adjacent to the project area, construction of the
project should avoid the general avian breeding season of
February through August.
b. If construction must occur during the general avian breeding
season, a pre-construction clearance survey shall be
conducted within 30 days prior to the start of construction, to
determine if any active nests or sign of nesting activity is
located on or immediately adjacent to the project area,
specifically at the proposed SNRC location. An additional
survey shall be conducted within 3 days prior to the
commencement of construction activities. If no nesting activity
is observed during the pre-construction survey, construction
may commence without potential impacts to nesting birds.
c. If an active nest is observed a suitable buffer will be placed
around the nest, depending on sensitivity of the nesting
species, and onsite monitoring may be required during
construction to ensure no disturbance or take of the nest
occurs. Construction may continue in other areas of the project
and construction activities may only encroach within the buffer
at the discretion of the monitoring biologist. The buffer will
remain in place until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is
no longer considered active.
Significant Less than Significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-10 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.4-5: Construction of the project could conflict
with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance.
None required Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.4-6: Construction of the project could conflict
with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or
other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 Significant Significant and
unavoidable impacts to
SAS habitat
Cultural Resources
3.5-1: The project could have a significant impact
if it would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical or archaeological
resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.
CUL-1: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, Valley District
shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S.
Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all mitigation related to
cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase
I survey for all areas within the project impact area that have not
received a survey within the last five years, including treated
conveyance pipeline corridors.
CUL-2: Prior to start of ground-disturbing activities, the qualified
archaeologist shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for
all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed
of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered,
and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains.
Valley District shall ensure that construction personnel are made
available for and attend the training and retain documentation
demonstrating attendance.
CUL-3: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological
materials, Valley District shall immediately cease all work activities
within approximately 100 feet of the discovery until it can be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Construction shall not
resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with Valley
District on the significance of the resource.
If it is determined that a discovered archaeological resource
constitutes a historic property under the NHPA or a historical or
unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and
preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation.
Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between
artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid
conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may
ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be
accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the
Significant Less than Significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-11 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a
permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in
place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through
excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Treatment Plan
shall be prepared and implemented by a qualified archaeologist in
consultation with Valley District that provides for the adequate
recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in
the archaeological resource. Valley District shall consult with
appropriate Native American representatives in determining
treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure
cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is
scientifically important, are considered.
3.5-2: The project could have a significant impact
if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
CUL-4: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be conducted for
the proposed SNRC in areas that are subject to excavations in
excess of 15 feet below ground surface. Paleontological monitoring
shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor (QPM). The
QPM, in consultation with the Valley District, may reduce or increase
monitoring based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or
other factors. If construction or other project personnel discover any
potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work,
work at the discovery location shall cease within 50 feet of the find
until the QPM has assessed the discovery and made
recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
Significant Less than significant
3.5-3: The project could have a significant impact
if it would disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
CUL-5: If human remains are encountered, Valley District shall halt
work within 100 feet of the find and contact the San Bernardino
County Coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner determines
that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision
(c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended by Assembly Bill 2641).
The NAHC shall designate a MLD for the remains per PRC Section
5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, Valley
District shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery
occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected
according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards
or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility
of multiple burials.
Less than Significant Not Applicable
3.5-4: The project could have a significant impact
if it would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource as
defined in Public Resources Code 21074.
CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-5 Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-12 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Geologic and Mineral Resources
3.6-1: The proposed project would not expose
people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury
or death involving rupture of a known earthquake
fault; strong seismic ground shaking; or seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction or
landslides.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-2: The proposed project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-3: The proposed project would not be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that
would become unstable as a result of the proposed
project and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, subsidence, or collapse.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-4: The proposed project would not be located
on problematic soils such as those characterized
as expansive, as defined in 24 CCR 1803.5.3 of
the California Building Code (2013), or corrosive.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.6-5: The proposed project would not have soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.6-6: The proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
residents of the state or result in the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral
resources recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.7-1: The proposed project could generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.7-2: The proposed project could conflict with
any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-13 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-1: The project could create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of, or
through foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving hazardous materials.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.8-2: The proposed project could not result in
hazardous emission or the handling of hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.8-3: The project would not be located on a site
that is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.8-4: The project would be located within an
area covered by an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, and
could result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.8-5: The project would not be located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.8-6: The project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.8-7: The project could expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Hydrology and Water Quality
3.9-1: The project could violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
HYDRO-1: Valley District will prepare a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) to ensure that the SNRC facility design complies with
stormwater management goals of the MS4.
Significant Less than Significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-14 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
HYDRO-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement a
groundwater monitoring program that includes installation of an array
of groundwater monitoring wells sufficient to characterize the effects
of the discharge on local groundwater quality. If monitoring shows
that beneficial uses of the groundwater may become adversely
affected by the discharge, the monitoring program would require
either modifications to treatment, modify the well screened area by
sealing the affected portion of the screen in the impacted
groundwater bearing zone, or compensation for adversely affected
groundwater wells through replacement of the affected well or
through providing replacement water.
3.9-2: The project could substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.9-3: The project could substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or
offsite.
HYDRO-3: The City Creek discharge structures shall be designed
with velocity dissipation features as needed to prevent scour at the
point of discharge. The design and location of these discharge
facilities would be approved by the SBCFCD and USACE to ensure
that they do not impede high flow capacity.
HYDRO-4: Valley District shall prepare a City Creek Channel
Vegetation Management Plan in coordination with SBCFCD and
CDFW that outlines vegetation management measures to minimize
impacts to the flood control function within City Creek. The plan will
include periodic vegetation trimming to remove large trees that could
impact flood control facilities downstream. The plan will outline
schedule, permitting and reporting requirements.
Significant Less than significant
3.9-4: The project would create or contribute
runoff water which could exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
HYDRO-5: Valley District shall prepare an Operational Manual for the
discharge to City Creek that identifies when discharges would be
conveyed to other discharge basins to avoid contributing to flood
flows in City Creek during peak flow periods.
Significant Less than significant
3.9-5: The project would not place housing within
a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.9-6: The project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-15 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.9-7: The project would not place structures
within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows.
HYDRO-3 Significant Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3.9-8: The project would not result in inundation
by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.9-9: The change in the point of discharge would
not adversely affect downstream beneficial uses
including water rights or conflict with the
Stipulated Judgment requiring minimum flows for
downstream diverters.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Land Use and Agriculture
3.10-1: The project would not physically divide an
established community.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.10-2: The project could conflict with applicable
land use plans, policies, or regulations of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.10-3: The project would not conflict with a
habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
Noise
3.11-1: The proposed project could result in
exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies.
NOISE-1: Valley District shall implement the following measures
during construction:
• Include design measures necessary to reduce construction
noise levels to com ply with local noise ordinances. These
measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.
• Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation
of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck
idling) away from the nearest noise-sensitive land uses.
• Contiguous properties shall be notified in advance of
construction activities. A contact name and number shall be
provided to contiguous properties to report excessive
construction noise.
NOISE-2: Noise-generating machinery at the proposed SNRC shall
be enclosed within structures that are designed with insulation
sufficient to comply with applicable nighttime noise standards at the
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-16 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
facility fenceline.
NOISE-3: Valley District shall establish a 24-hour Hot-Line to serve
the local community. Valley District shall ensure that neighbor
concerns are investigated and addressed immediately. The Hot-Line
number shall be provided to the neighboring properties and be
posted conspicuously at the entrance to the facility.
3.11-2: The proposed program could result in
exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.11-3: The proposed program could result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 Significant Less than significant
3.11-4: The proposed program could result in a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project.
NOISE-1 Significant Significant and
unavoidable
3.11-5: For a project located within an airport
land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, in an area within 2 miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
implementation of the proposed program could
expose people residing or working in the area to
excessive noise levels.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.11-6: For a project located in the vicinity of a
private airstrip, the proposed program could
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice
3.12-1: The project would not induce population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
None Available Significant Significant and
unavoidable
3.12-2: The project would not have a significant
impact if it would eliminate existing dwelling units.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.12-3: The project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
None required No Impact Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-17 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.12-4: The project could significantly affect the
health or environment of minority or low income
populations disproportionately.
AES -1. AIR-2, NOISE – 1, NOISE-2, TR-1 Significant Less than Significant
Public Services, Utilities, and Energy
3.13-1: The project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services: fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks, or
other public facilities.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.13-2: The project would have a significant
impact if it would exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-3: The project would not require or result in
the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-4: The project would have a significant
impact if it would require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-5: The project would have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-6: The project would not result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project
that it does not have adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-18 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
3.13-7: The project would be served by a landfill
with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-8: The project would comply with federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste.
None required Less than significant Not applicable
3.13-9: The project could encounter buried
utilities.
UTIL-1: During design and prior to construction, Valley District shall
verify the nature and location of underground utilities before the start
of any construction that would require excavation. Valley District shall
notify and coordinate with public and private utility providers at least
48 hours before the commencement of work adjacent to any located
utility. The contractor shall be required to notify the service provider
in advance of service interruptions to allow the service provider
sufficient time to notify customers. The contractor shall be required to
coordinate timing of interruptions with the service providers to
minimize the frequency and duration of interruptions.
Significant Less than Significant with
Mitigation
3.13-10: Operation of the proposed project would
require additional power that could affect local
and regional energy supplies.
UTIL-2: Valley District shall require the use of energy efficient
equipment, including but not limited to, pumps, conveyance features,
and lighting for the proposed SNRC and pump stations.
Significant Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Recreation
3.14-1: The project would not increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
3.14-2: The project would not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical impact on the environment.
None required No Impact Not applicable
Transportation and Circulation
3.15-1: The project would result in increases in
vehicle trips by construction workers, facility
operators, haul trucks, and deliveries that could
conflict with applicable plans and policies
regarding the effectiveness of the circulation
system.
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Valley District shall require the contractor
to prepare a traffic control plan that identifies specific traffic control
measures to ensure access and safety on the local roadway network.
The traffic control plan will include the following elements at a
minimum:
• A schedule of lane closures and road closures over the
construction period
• Measures to maintain traffic flow at all times across the
construction zone including requiring flaggers to direct traffic
Significant Less than significant
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-19 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
when only one lane of traffic is available
• Detour routes and notification procedures if full road closures
are needed
• Lane closure notifications to the City of Highland, City of San
Bernardino and City of Redlands and local emergency services
providers
• Temporary signalization modifications (if any) for intersection
signals
• On-road traffic control features and signage compliant with city
traffic control requirements
• Maintain access to residence and business driveways, public
facilities, and recreational resources at all times to the extent
feasible; Minimize access disruptions to businesses and
residences
• Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with
metal plates at the end of each workday to accommodate
traffic and access
• Identify all roadway locations where special construction
techniques (e.g., horizontal boring, directional drilling or night
construction) will be used to minimize impacts to traffic flow
Mitigation Measure TR-2: Valley District shall prepare a notification
plan for communication with affected residents and businesses prior
to the start of construction. Advance public notification shall include
posting of notices and appropriate signage of construction activities.
The written notification shall include the construction schedule, the
exact location and duration of activities within each street (i.e., which
lanes and access point/driveways would be blocked on which days
and for how long), and a toll-free telephone number for receiving
questions or complaints.
Mitigation Measure TR-3: Prior to installation of pipelines in East 5th
Street, Valley District shall coordinate with the City of Highland to
ensure that the proposed East 5th Street curb and drainage
improvements are conducted simultaneously with the pipeline
installation to avoid impacting the street twice in a short period of
time.
Mitigation Measure TR-4: Valley District shall ensure that deliveries,
biosolids haul trips, and worker shift transitions are discouraged
during the period of 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 2:30 to 3:30 PM
corresponding to peak pick up and drop off times at the high school.
Mitigation Measure TR-5: Valley District shall design turn-in and
turn-out ramps adjacent to 5th Street to accommodate solids haul
trips and material deliveries ingress and egress in a manner that
ensures safe traffic conditions. Roadway improvements including
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-20 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
12. Clarifications and Modifications
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Significance before
Mitigation
Significance if Mitigation
is Implemented
modifications to the curb shall be approved by the City of Highland
Department of Transportation.
3.15-2: The project would not result in a change
in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks.
None required No Impact Not applicable
3.15-3: The project would not result in a
substantial increase in hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible uses.
TR-4 Significant Less than Significant
3.13-4: The project would not result in inadequate
emergency access.
TR-1 Significant Less than significant
3.13-5: The project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
None required Less than Significant Not applicable
Secondary Effects of Growth
The project would remove an obstacle to growth None required Significant Significant and
unavoidable
Cumulative Secondary Growth None required Significant Significant and
unavoidable
Sterling Natural Resource Center 12-21 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.01
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION 2016.01
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) is the
lead agency, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources
Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et
seq.), for the proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) Project; and
WHEREAS, the East Valley Water District (EVWD) is a responsible agency, pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.), for the proposed
SNRC Project; and
WHEREAS, the SNRC Project involves the construction of a wastewater treatment
facility and associated facilities that will provide tertiary treatment of wastewater generated
within the EVWD service area and make the treated water available for beneficial uses within
the Upper Santa Ana River watershed; and
WHEREAS, the SNRC Project includes five project components: construction of the
SNRC Treatment Facility in the City of Highland, construction of a treated water conveyance
system that will convey treated water to one of three groundwater recharge locations,
modifications to wastewater collection facilities, rehabilitation and reuse of the existing Santa
Ana River pipeline, and refurbishment of existing groundwater wells to potentially supply
supplemental water to the Rialto Channel when needed for environmental benefits; and
WHEREAS, in October 2014, as updated in March 2015, EVWD studied the feasibility
of a recycled water project to treat wastewater generated within the EVWD service area; on
April 8, 2015, the EVWD Board of Directors created an ad hoc committee comprised of two
members of the Board of Directors for the purpose of working cooperatively with Valley District
regarding such a recycled water project; on September 23, 2015, the EVWD Board of Directors
approved a Framework Agreement with Valley District, which became effective on October 6,
2015, that outlined the terms of the cooperation between the parties and established Valley
District as the lead agency for the SNRC Project; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2015, Valley District issued a Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SNRC Project, which commenced a 30-day scoping
period during which Valley District held public scoping meetings at Valley District on October
29, 2015 and at EVWD on November 5, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2015, Valley District posted a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIR for the SNRC Project with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County, and made
the Draft EIR available at three physical locations in San Bernardino County and at the SNRC
Project website and to the Board of Directors of EVWD; and
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.01
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, during the public comment period for the Draft EIR, which ran from
December 17, 2015 through February 1, 2016, Valley District held public meetings on the Draft
EIR at Valley District on January 14, 2016, at EVWD on January 19, 2016, and thereafter
received comments from approximately 23 organizations, individuals, and public agencies; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2016, Valley District released the Final EIR for the Project
(SCH #2015101058) which consists of the Draft EIR, the comments on the Draft EIR and the
identity of the commenters, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and corrections and
revisions to the Draft EIR, and made it available at three physical locations in San Bernardino
County and at the SNRC Project website and to the Board of Directors of EVWD; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified the significant adverse impacts of the SNRC
Project, feasible mitigation measures to reduce most SNRC Project impacts to less-than-
significant levels; and the SNRC Project impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level (including construction-related noise, construction-related air emissions,
cumulative air emissions, biological resources, and removal of an obstacle to growth) and
therefore remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified no new significant information or new significant
impacts requiring recirculation; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Valley District approved a Resolution 1038 certifying
the Environmental Impact Report for the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project (SCH
#2015101058) and Resolution No. 1039 adopting CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sterling
Natural Resource Center Project and approving the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project
SCH #2015101058); and
WHEREAS, EVWD’s Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR, including without limitation the Draft EIR and all supporting
documents in the possession or under the control of Valley District. All references to the EIR
and FEIR hereafter shall include all documents referred to above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND CERTIFIED by the Board of
Directors of East Valley Water District as follows:
1. The EIR was presented to the East Valley Water District Board of Directors on
March 4, 2016 and considered by the Board of Directors at its regularly scheduled meeting of
March 23, 2016, and has been independently reviewed and considered by the members of the
Board of Directors prior to that meeting and prior to the Board of Directors taking any action to
approve or disapprove the SNRC Project.
2. The EIR’s evaluation of the SNRC Project reflects the Board of Directors’
independent judgment and analysis based on the Board of Directors’ review of the entirety of the
administrative record, which record provides the information upon which this resolution is based.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.01
Page 3 of 3
3. The EIR for the SNRC Project has been completed in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and is adequate for EVWD’s use as a
responsible agency.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 2016.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
___________________________________
Ronald L. Coats
Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2016.01 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting
held March 23, 2016.
___________________________________
John J. Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.02
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION 2016.02
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
PROJECT AND APPROVING THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) is the
lead agency, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources
Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et
seq.), for the proposed Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) Project; and
WHEREAS, the East Valley Water District (EVWD) is a responsible agency, pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.), for the proposed
SNRC Project; and
WHEREAS, the SNRC Project involves the construction of a wastewater treatment
facility and associated facilities that will provide tertiary treatment of wastewater generated
within the EVWD service area and make the treated water for beneficial uses within the Upper
Santa Ana River watershed; and
WHEREAS, the SNRC Project includes five project components: construction of the
SNRC Treatment Facility in the City of Highland, construction of a treated water conveyance
system that will be used to convey treated water to one of three groundwater recharge locations,
modifications to wastewater collection facilities, rehabilitation and reuse of the existing Santa
Ana River pipeline, and refurbishment of existing groundwater wells to potentially supply
supplemental water to the Rialto Channel when needed for environmental benefits; and
WHEREAS, in October 2014, as updated in March 2015, EVWD studied the feasibility
of a recycled water project to treat wastewater generated within the EVWD service area; on
April 8, 2015, the EVWD Board of Directors created an ad hoc committee comprised of two
members of the Board of Directors for the purpose of working cooperatively with Valley District
regarding such a recycled water project; on September 23, 2015, the EVWD Board of Directors
approved a Framework Agreement with Valley District, which became effective on October 6,
2015, that outlined the terms of the cooperation between the parties and established Valley
District as the lead agency for the SNRC Project; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2015, Valley District issued a Notice of Preparation of an
EIR for the SNRC Project, which commenced a 30-day scoping period during which Valley
District held public scoping meetings at Valley District on October 29, 2015 and at EVWD on
November 5, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2015, Valley District posted a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIR for the SNRC Project with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County, and made
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.02
Page 2 of 3
the Draft EIR available at three physical locations in San Bernardino County and on the SNRC
Project website and to the Board of Directors of EVWD; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period for the Draft EIR, which ran from
December 17, 2015 through February 1, 2016, Valley District held public meetings on the Draft
EIR at Valley District on January 14, 2016, at EVWD on January 19, 2016, and thereafter
received comments from approximately 23 organizations, individuals, and public agencies; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2016, Valley District released the Final EIR for the Project
(SCH #2015101058) which consists of the Draft EIR, the comments on the Draft EIR and the
identity of the commenters, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and corrections and
revisions to the Draft EIR, and made it available at three physical locations in San Bernardino
County and at the SNRC Project website and to the Board of Directors of EVWD; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified the significant adverse impacts of the SNRC
Project, feasible mitigation measures to reduce most SNRC Project impacts to less-than-
significant levels; and the SNRC Project impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level (including construction-related noise, construction-related air emissions,
cumulative air emissions, biological resources, and removal of an obstacle to growth) and
therefore remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified no new significant information or new significant
impacts requiring recirculation; and
WHEREAS, Valley District prepared CEQA Findings of Fact for the SNRC Project that
describe the environmental impacts of the SNRC Project as well as the measures that will
mitigate most of those impacts and identified impacts that cannot be fully mitigated and thus are
significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, Valley District prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
SNRC Project that acknowledges the significant and unavoidable effects of the SNRC Project
and sets forth reasons for concluding that such impacts are acceptable because they are
outweighed by the benefits of the SNRC Project; and
WHEREAS, Valley District prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) for the SNRC Project’s mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016 Valley District approved Resolution 1038 certifying the
Environmental Impact Report for the Sterling Natural Resources Center Project (SCH
#2015101058) and Resolution No. 1039 adopting CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sterling
Natural Resource Center Project and approving the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project
SCH #2015101058); and
WHEREAS, none of the three conditions set forth in Section 15052 of the CEQA
Guidelines are present; and
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.02
Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, EVWD’s Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR, including without limitation the Draft EIR and all supporting
documents in the possession or under the control of Valley District. All references to the EIR
and FEIR shall include all documents referred to above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the East
Valley Water District as follows:
1. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
SNRC Project, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference, are hereby adopted.
2. East Valley Water District hereby adopts the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit 2
and incorporated by reference, as a set of conditions under which the SNRC Project will be
implemented and as legally binding upon East Valley Water District.
3. East Valley Water District hereby approves the proposed SNRC Project analyzed
in the Final EIR (SCH # 2015101058).
4. East Valley Water District staff shall sign and file the Notice of Determination for
the SNRC Project attached hereto as Exhibit 3 within five working days of the date of this
approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 2016.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
__________________________________
Ronald L. Coats
Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2016.02 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting
held March 23, 2016.
___________________________________
John J. Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 1 of 51
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE
STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2015101058)
March 23, 2016
I. FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO CEQA
A. Introduction
1. Project Overview and Background
On March 15, 2016, acting in its capacity as lead agency, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District (“Valley District”) approved resolutions certifying the Environmental Impact
Report (SCH #2015101058) (“EIR”) and adopting CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sterling
Natural Resource Center Project. The Sterling Natural Resource Center (“SNRC”) project
involves the construction of a wastewater treatment facility and associated facilities that will
provide tertiary treatment of wastewater generated within the East Valley Water District
(“EVWD”) service area and make the treated water available for beneficial uses within the
Upper Santa Ana River watershed. The SNRC project will produce a new, local supply of
recycled water, thus helping to reduce reliance on imported water supplies.
East Valley Water District is a responsible agency for the SNRC project. In October 2014, as
updated in March 2015, EVWD studied the feasibility of a recycled water project to treat
wastewater generated within the EVWD service area. On April 8, 2015, the EVWD Board of
Directors created an ad hoc committee comprised of two members of the Board of Directors for
the purpose of working cooperatively with Valley District regarding such a recycled water
project. On September 23, 2015, the EVWD Board of Directors approved a Framework
Agreement with Valley District, which became effective on October 6, 2015, that outlined the
terms of the cooperation between the parties and established Valley District as the lead agency
for the SNRC project. Valley District thereafter prepared the EIR, including the Draft and Final
EIR and all associated comments and records, with the participation of EVWD as a responsible
agency in this process.
In its capacity as a responsible agency, EVWD now proposes to consider the certified EIR and to
approve the SNRC project, which includes five components:
1. The SNRC Treatment Facility, proposed to be constructed on vacant property
in the City of Highland to provide tertiary treatment of wastewater to produce
recycled water that would meet California Code of Regulations Title 22
requirements for recycled water. The SNRC property would also include an
Administration Center to support the operations of the facility, a community
“EXHIBIT 1”
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 2 of 51
learning center, a parking lot, and associated public open space area with garden
and water features.
2. A treated water conveyance system comprised of a pumping station on the
SNRC site and 24-inch diameter conveyance pipelines to the Santa Ana River and
one or more of three discharge facility options including at City Creek, the East
Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, and the Redlands Basins.
3. Modifications to wastewater collection facilities including construction of two
lift stations and forcemains connecting the lower portion of the EVWD collection
system to the treatment plant, as well as additional collection sewers including
East 5th Street from Victoria to North Del Rosa, and in North Del Rosa from
Baseline to East 6th Street to direct gravity flows to the SNRC.
4. Rehabilitation and utilization of the existing SAR Pipeline as a carrier pipe to
contain a 24-inch diameter pipeline. This 24-inch diameter pipeline would
connect the SNRC with the discharge pipeline of the San Bernardino Water
Reclamation Plant (“SBWRP”).
5. Refurbishing and equipping existing groundwater wells near the Rialto
Channel to potentially supply groundwater to the Rialto Channel when
supplemental water is needed in the Santa Ana River for environmental benefits.
Of the proposed project’s potential effects, the most notable is the potential impact to the Santa
Ana sucker (“SAS”). The SAS, which is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered
Species Act, is a small, bottom-feeding fish with an average length of 4.5 inches. It is one of the
few native fishes currently extant in Southern California. Its historical range included the upper
and lower portions of the Santa Ana River watershed in San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange
Counties. It was historically documented from the San Bernardino Mountains to Orange County,
including multiple tributaries such as City Creek, Warm Creek, Lytle Creek, Rialto Channel,
Evans Lake drain, Tequesquite Arroyo, Sunnyslope Creek, Anza Park drain, and Chino Creek.
Today, the species is currently restricted to the lowlands of the Santa Ana River watershed. The
Rialto Channel and SAR below its confluence support much of the last remaining SAS breeding
and foraging habitat still existing in the watershed. Above the Rialto Channel, the Santa Ana
River generally exhibits a dry gap for several miles where no surface water flows occur during
dry weather. As a result, the Rialto Channel and RIX discharge are the main contributors of
water into the SAR at this location. The proposed SNRC project will indirectly divert up to 6
million gallons per day (MGD) from the Santa Ana River at and below the RIX, because it will
reduce the amount of wastewater the RIX treats and discharges. That water will instead be
treated at the new SNRC facility, and then be devoted to beneficial uses in the region,
particularly recharging the Bunker Hill groundwater basin.
Recognizing, in light of the existing stressors to the SAS, that the diversion of water from the
Santa Ana River could significantly impact the sucker, the EIR identifies a comprehensive
mitigation plan that will address a variety of non-flow factors that contribute to SAS mortality.
Valley District intends to implement these measures through the proposed Upper Santa Ana
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 3 of 51
River Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), in which it will partner with regulatory agencies like
USFWS and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (“CDFW”), as well as numerous local
agency partners including EVWD, which will benefit the species and begin progress towards
recovery, as many of the measures proposed are suggested in the draft Recovery Plan for SAS.
In the event the HCP is not finalized in a timely fashion, Valley District will implement the
mitigation measures through a Habitat Monitoring and Management Plan (HMMP). Thus,
although the proposed project will eventually reduce SAR flows, mitigation measures that are
specifically designed to improve the long-term survival of the SAS and provide a buffer against
catastrophic events that could extirpate the species from the area will be implemented before any
flow reductions occur. The USFWS, in its comments on the Draft EIR, stated that it believes this
approach to mitigation of SAS impacts will indeed chart a course towards recovery of the
species, and hopes that the approach set forth in the EIR will be emulated by other projects in the
San Bernardino Valley.
In short, the proposed project represents a 21st century water supply project for Southern
California. Rather than relying on the importation of water from the Colorado River Basin
(which is in long-term drought) or the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (which could
adversely affect a number of federally listed species), the project recognizes that Southern
California needs to augment its water supply reliability through the use of recycled water. The
project proposes to make best use of recycled water by storing it in the local groundwater basin
(the Bunker Hill groundwater basin) for subsequent extraction by retail water purveyors. As
mentioned above, because the diversion of the recycled water from the Santa Ana River is likely
to have significant and adverse effects on the SAS, however, the project proposes to develop and
implement a suite of mitigation measures that will help advance recovery efforts for the SAS. In
these ways, the project balances the need for both Valley District and EVWD to meet the
consumptive water demands of their ratepayers and the need to protect the environment of
Southern California to the greatest extent feasible. As a responsible agency, upon approval of
the EIR and the SNRC project, EVWD, together with Valley District, will also be committed to
the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
2. Project Purpose and Objectives
The fundamental purpose of the SNRC project is to treat, recycle, and reuse wastewater
produced within EVWD’s service area for multiple beneficial uses within the Upper Santa Ana
River watershed. The SNRC project will provide the ratepayers of the region and of EVWD
with greater control over the cost of wastewater treatment and produce a new, local supply of
recycled water that will help reduce reliance on imported water supplies.
The primary objectives of the SNRC project are to:
• Treat, recycle and reuse wastewater for multiple beneficial uses within the upper Santa
Ana River watershed to meet existing and future water demands.
• Increase the use of recycled water to continue efforts toward resolving regional water
supply challenges in a cost effective and environmentally responsible manner.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 4 of 51
• Increase groundwater replenishment opportunities in the Bunker Hill groundwater basin
with new local water resources.
• Provide an administrative center that benefits the community in a manner that is
compatible with neighboring land uses.
• Increase local water supply operational flexibility within the San Bernardino Valley
region to advance the integrated water management objectives of Valley District, EVWD
and the region.
3. Requirements for CEQA Findings
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. and the
regulations implementing that statute, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq. (the “CEQA
Guidelines”) (collectively, the Act and the CEQA Guidelines are referred to as “CEQA”) require
public agencies to consider the potential effects of their discretionary activities on the
environment and, when feasible, to adopt and implement mitigation measures that avoid or
substantially lessen the effects of those activities on the environment. Specifically, Public
Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute
states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic,
social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed project, the lead agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of
three permissible conclusions. The three possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 5 of 51
(Public Resources Code Section 21081, subd (a); see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15091,
subd. (a).)
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364
adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Golden Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.)
The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar
v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar).) “[F]easibility” under
CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715
(Sequoyah Hills); see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [after weighing “‘economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors’ … ‘an agency may conclude that a mitigation measure or alternative is impracticable or
undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground’”].)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened,
a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the
agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons
why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable
adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of
approving…any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is
necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are
responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those
decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576)
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15096 identify the special duties EVWD has when acting
as a responsible agency on the SNRC EIR. As a responsible agency, EVWD must certify that its
decision making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the lead agency’s
EIR on the project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15050, subd. (b).). Prior to reaching a decision
on the project, the responsible agency must consider the environmental effects of the project as
shown in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096, subd. (f).) When an EIR has been prepared for a
project, a responsible agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any
feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially
lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15096, subd. (g)(2).) Further, the responsible agency shall make the findings
required by Section 15091 for each significant effect of the project and shall make the findings in
Section 15093 if necessary. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096, subd. (h).)
Because the SNRC EIR identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and
in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines presented above, the EVWD Board
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 6 of 51
of Directors (“Board”) hereby adopts the following Findings, as originally prepared and adopted
by Valley District, as part of the EVWD approval of the SNRC Project. These Findings
constitute EVWD’s best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to
approve the project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. These Findings, in
other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that
come into effect with EVWD’s approval of the SNRC project.
4. Organization of Findings
The Statement of Findings, Section 1 of this document, is organized as follows:
• Section I.A provides the background and context of the project and describes the need for
these Findings as to the SNRC project
• Section I.B includes a brief description of the project
• Section I.C describes the CEQA environmental review process for the project
• Section I.D describes the record of documents for the project
• Section I.E summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the proposed SNRC
project and contains EVWD’s Findings of Fact regarding the project’s impacts
• Section I.F contains EVWD’s Findings regarding alternatives to the project
• Section I.G contains EVWD’s general Findings regarding the project and EIR
• Section I.H describes and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) for the project, specifically for the approved SNRC project site
B. Description of the Project
The EIR provides a detailed description of the components of the proposed SNRC project, which
are summarized below:
SNRC Facility. The project would include construction of the SNRC facility, which would
provide tertiary treatment to wastewater generated within the EVWD service area. The SNRC
would have a maximum capacity of 10 MGD and produce tertiary treated water in compliance
with California Code of Regulations Title 22 recycled water quality requirements for unrestricted
reuse. The SNRC design includes primary treatment, a membrane bio-reactor (MBR), ultraviolet
(UV) light disinfection, and anaerobic solids processing with off-site solids disposal. The
proposed SNRC would consist of multiple buildings, to house the process components,
equipment, and offices.
All treatment processes would either be covered or housed in specific buildings equipped with
odor control facilities. The SNRC would consist of several treatment trains, each with a capacity
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 7 of 51
that could range from 1 MGD to 4 MGD and that combined would have an ultimate capacity of
10 MGD. Space will be provided for future expansion to meet planned growth within the service
area. The proposed Treatment Facility components are described in detail in Chapter 2 of the
EIR.
In addition, the 6-acre parcel west of the SNRC site would be developed into the SNRC
Administration Center. The Administration Center would consist of administration buildings and
pavilions housing administrative offices needed for the treatment plant, surrounded by publicly
accessible open space. The Administration Center would be designed to serve the community
with an interpretive center which will also act as an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during
emergencies, with community gardens and community pavilions.
Treated Water Conveyance System. The project would include construction of a recycled water
conveyance system comprised of a pumping station on the SNRC site and 24-inch diameter
conveyance pipelines to one or more of three discharge facility options: the City Creek
Discharge Alternative, the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds Discharge Alternative, and the
Redlands Basins Discharge Alternative. Each Discharge Alternative would consist of multiple
segments containing crossings and discharge structures. A list of these segments and their
associated crossings and structures are included below. A more detailed description of each
segment and their specific location can be found in Chapter 2 of the EIR, and in the Alternatives
section of these Findings. In addition, staff have prepared an executive summary addressing the
three Discharge Alternatives, which is part of the record of proceedings for the SNRC project.
Wastewater Collections Facilities. Two sewer lift stations and force mains would be constructed
in order to convey wastewater from EVWD’s service area to the SNRC. The influent, dry pit lift
station would have a capacity of 5.4 MGD and would include three dry pit submersible solids
handling pumps. The lift station would transfer flow from the collection system to the SNRC. In
addition, several diversion points will be installed internal to the existing collection system to
help capture and divert all of EVWD’s gravity fed wastewater flows to the SNRC facility.
Santa Ana River Pipeline. An existing 36-inch pipeline extends from Alabama Street to the
SBWRP. The pipeline was installed to convey treated water from the SBWRP to upper segments
of the SAR for discharge and is perforated in the upper 6,600 feet. As part of the proposed
project, the upper 6,600 feet of the existing pipeline would be relined with PVC liner to re-
purpose the pipeline to serve as a carrier pipe for the treated water conveyance pipeline
connecting the SNRC to the SBWRP discharge pipeline.
Refurbishing the Rialto Groundwater Wells. Four existing groundwater wells are located near
the Rialto Channel which is a tributary to the Santa Ana River. Valley District would obtain
approval to access and use the wells. With owner approval, Valley District would refurbish the
wells, including equipping the wells and re-tooling the pumps as needed. The wells will enable
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 8 of 51
groundwater to be used as supplemental water, to mitigate the potential direct and indirect effects
of reduced Santa Ana River flow. The groundwater would be conveyed into the Santa Ana River
as needed to maintain minimum flows established by the wildlife agencies. The wells would be
operated by Valley District.
C. Environmental Review Process
1. Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an
EIR was prepared and circulated by mail and email for review by applicable local, state and
federal agencies and the public. The NOP was also made available on the Sterling Natural
Resource Center website and published in the San Bernardino Sun, The Press-Enterprise, the
Highland Community News, and El Chicano. The 30-day project scoping period, which began
with the distribution of the NOP on October 16, 2015, remained open through November 16,
2015. Two public scoping meetings were held on October 29, 2015 at the Valley District office
and on November 5, 2015 at the EVWD office. The NOP provided the public and interested
public agencies with the opportunity to review the proposed project and to provide comments or
concerns on the scope and content of the environmental review document including: the range of
actions; alternatives; mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the
EIR. A summary report of the scoping process is included in the record of proceedings.
2. Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR and Invitation to Provide
Comments
The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was posted on December 17, 2015 with the
County Clerk in San Bernardino County. The Draft EIR was circulated to federal, state, and
local agencies and interested parties that requested a copy of the Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft
EIR were made available to the public at the following locations:
• Sterling Natural Resource Center Web Site (http://www.sterlingnrc.com)
• SBVMWD Headquarters, 380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
• Norman F Feldheym Central Library, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410
• Sam J. Ricardo Library & Environmental Learning Center, 7863 Central Avenue,
Highland, CA 92346
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from December 17, 2015 through February 1,
2016.
During the public review period, Valley District held two public meetings to provide interested
persons with an opportunity to comment orally or in writing on the Draft EIR and the project.
The public meetings were held at the Valley District office in San Bernardino on January 14,
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 9 of 51
2016 and at the EVWD office in Highland on January 19, 2016, and followed the public
meetings followed the format described below:
• Registration, where attendees were given the option to provide contact information in a
sign-in sheet, and receive copies of the NOA, a meeting agenda, and a comment slip. The
comment slip had space for individuals to write comments and/or questions for submittal
to Valley District.
• Presentation of meeting purpose and format, overview of the proposed project,
presentation of the EIR process, issues analyzed in the Draft EIR and potential impacts,
and request for public comment.
• Open house which consisted of poster stations staffed by project team representatives
who were available to answer questions and provide project information.
• Comment station, where attendees could compose written comments to submit at the
meeting, or provide verbal comments one-on-one to a court reporter.
No members of the audiences of either public meeting offered comments. A summary report of
the outreach and public participation process for the Draft EIR is included in the record of
proceedings.
3. Circulation and Posting of the Final EIR
As required by section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, Valley District provided the Final
EIR, which includes written responses to all comments, to commenters on March 4, 2016, ten
days in advance of the March 15, 2016 meeting at which the Board of Valley District considered
and certified the EIR and approved of the project. In addition, Valley District made the Final
EIR available to the public at the following locations:
• Sterling Natural Resource Center Web Site (http://www.sterlingnrc.com)
• SBVMWD Headquarters, 380 E. Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA 92408
• Norman F Feldheym Central Library, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410
• Sam J. Ricardo Library & Environmental Learning Center, 7863 Central Avenue,
Highland, CA 92346
EVWD concludes that Valley District met the requirements of CEQA relating to public noticing
and outreach during the public review period of the DEIR. EVWD further concludes that Valley
District has provided ample time for agencies, organizations, and interested members of the
public to participate in the CEQA process by reviewing the DEIR and providing substantive
comments.
D. The Record of Proceedings
Valley District is the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the EVWD Board’s decision is based, and such documents and other
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 10 of 51
materials are located at Valley District’s offices, 380 East Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, CA
92408. Copies of the DEIR and FEIR are also available at the SNRC website,
http://sterlingnrc.com/.
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings is composed of all non-
privileged documents relating to the project in Valley District’s files on this matter, including,
without limitation:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared for the project;
• The DEIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project, with all appendices to the
DEIR;
• All comments or documents submitted by public agencies or by members of the public
during or after the comment period on the DEIR and up to Valley District’s approval of
the project;
• The FEIR for the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project, with all appendices to the
FEIR;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• All Findings and Resolutions adopted by Valley District in connection with the project
and all documents cited or referred to therein;
• All staff reports and presentation materials related to the project, including internal
reports and analyses prepared by consultants to Valley District or EVWD;
• All studies conducted for the project and contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the
DEIR, the FEIR, or the MMRP;
• All public reports and documents related to the project prepared for or by Valley District
or EVWD, including, without limitation, all planning documents;
• All DEIR and FEIR references, whether or not the referenced documents are included in
the Appendices;
• All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, meetings
and workshops related to the project, the DEIR, the FEIR, or the MMRP;
• All other public reports and documents relating to the project that were used by Valley
District or EVWD staff or consultants in the preparation of the DEIR, the FEIR or the
MMRP; and
• All other documents, not otherwise included above, required by Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6.
E. Findings of Fact Regarding Project Impacts
1. Findings Regarding Less than Significant Impacts
The EIR concludes that that the project will result in no impacts or less than significant impacts
to the following resource areas:
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 11 of 51
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources;
• Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources;
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
• Land Use and Planning; and
• Recreation.
The EVWD Board finds, based on the EIR and the entire record, that the EIR’s conclusions
regarding the project’s impacts to these resource areas are correct.
• The EIR also concludes that the following specific potential impacts will not actually
result from the project or will be less than significant, without the need for mitigation:
• Aesthetic Impacts 3.1-1, 3.1-2, and 3.1-4;
• Air Quality Impacts 3.3-1 and 3.3-4;
• Biological Impacts 3.4-3, 3.4-5, and 3.4-6;
• Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts 3.9-2, 3.9-8, and 3.9-9;
• Noise Impacts 3.11-2, 3.11-5, and 3.11-6;
• Population and Housing Impacts 3.12-2 and 3.12-2;
• Public Services, Utilities, and Energy Impacts 3.13-1, 3.13-2, 3.13-3, 3.13-4, 3.13-5,
3.13-6, 3.13-7. and 3.13-8; and
• Traffic Impacts 3.15-2 and 3.13-5.
The EVWD Board finds, based on the EIR and the entire record, that the EIR’s conclusions
regarding these specific potential impacts are correct.
2. Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts That Will Be
Mitigated or Avoided
Aesthetics
Potentially Significant Impact 3.1-3: Degradation of the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 12 of 51
Finding: Construction of the SNRC facility would temporarily alter views at the SNRC site
during construction, and the facility itself will modify the existing character of the neighborhood.
However changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley
District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With these
mitigation measures, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.1-3 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Above-ground buildings/structures associated with the proposed
SNRC shall be designed to be consistent with the aesthetic qualities of existing structures in the
surrounding area to minimize contrasting features.
Mitigation Measure AES-2: During project design, a landscape plan shall be prepared for the
SNRC that restores disturbed areas and minimizes effects to local character. Valley District shall
implement and maintain the landscape plan.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 will reduce the project’s impact to
the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings to a less-than-significant
level because they will ensure that the SNRC facility’s visual character is compatible with the
surrounding area.
Air Quality
Potentially Significant Impact 3.3-5: Creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Finding: The proposed SNRC facility is expected to generate foul gas odors that could affect a
substantial number of people in the area surrounding the project site. However, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate
or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the
project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Valley District has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measure that will reduce
potentially significant impact 3.3-5 to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement an Odor Impact
Minimization Plan that includes a monitoring and reporting plan. The plan shall include the
following elements at a minimum:
• Identification of responsible parties
• Description of odor control system design and performance standards
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 13 of 51
• Odor control system operations plan
• Identification of fence-line odor monitoring and reporting program
• Achievable odor remediation actions and implementation protocol
• Local community outreach program
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 will reduce the project’s odor-related impacts to a
less-than-significant level because it control the odors produced by the facility and enable Valley
District to rapidly address any complaints that might indicate the odor controls are not working
as expected.
Biological Resources
Potentially Significant Impact 3.4-1: Substantial adverse effects on plant and wildlife species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Finding: As noted in the EIR, the project could potentially affect numerous candidate, sensitive,
or special-status plant and wildlife species. Some construction of the project components will
occur in locations that provide suitable habitat for a number of species, including Nevin’s
barberry (Berberis nevinii), whitebracted spineflower (Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca),
slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), and Santa Ana River woolly-star
(Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum). In addition, operation of the project will result in a
reduction in riparian habitat in the Santa Ana River, and is also expected to result in the
conversion of a portion of the RAFSS habitat in City Creek or other recharge areas to Southern
Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest.
However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by
Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With
these mitigation measures, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects on plant and
wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.4-1 to a less-than-significant
level for species other than the Santa Ana sucker:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures will reduce potential project-related
impacts to special status plant species that may occur adjacent to the project site within City
Creek to a less than significant level. Potential project-related impacts may result from the
construction of the pipeline extension and discharge structure within City Creek, Redlands
Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds.
a) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the East
Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a focused botanical survey will be conducted to
determine the presence/absence of any of the special-status species with a moderate or
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 14 of 51
high potential to occur. The focused botanical survey will be conducted by a botanist or
qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of local special-status plant
species, and according to accepted protocol outlined by the CNPS and/or CDFW.
b) If a special status state or federally listed plant species is discovered in a project impact
area, informal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required prior to the
impact occurring to develop an appropriate avoidance strategy. Depending on the
sensitivity of the species, relocation, site restoration, or other habitat improvement actions
may be an acceptable option to avoid significant impacts, as determined through
consultation with the resource agencies.
c) If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not feasible, Valley District
shall quantify the impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed plant species
within the construction area and estimated perennial flow area and prepare a Biological
Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the
State Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall quantify compensation
requirements for affected plants species. Valley District shall implement the conservation
measures and compensation requirements identified through consultation by USACE
with both CDFW and USFWS.
d) Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of the discharge
including within the City Creek channel resulting from perennial flow shall require on-
site replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in consultation with
CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio
of at least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following measures will reduce potential project-related
impacts to special-status wildlife species that may occur within disturbed and native habitats, to a
less than significant level. Potential project-related impacts may result from construction of the
SNRC, construction of the discharge structures within City Creek and other discharge locations,
and perennial discharges to City Creek or other discharge locations.
a. Prior to the start of construction within City Creek or other discharge locations, Valley
District shall conduct focused surveys within the project impact areas to determine if any
state or federally-listed wildlife species (southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal
California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and least Bell’s vireo) are located
within project impact areas. Focused surveys will be conducted by a qualified and/or
permitted biologist, following approved survey protocol. Survey results will be forwarded
to CDFW and USFWS. If state or federally-listed species are determined to occur on the
project site with the potential to be impacted by the project, consultation with CDFW
and/or USFWS will be required.
b. If impact avoidance is not feasible, Valley District shall quantify the impacted acreage
supporting state or federally-listed wildlife species within the construction area and
estimated perennial flow area and prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 15 of 51
The Biological Assessment shall quantify compensation requirements for affected
wildlife species. Valley District shall implement the conservation measures and
compensation requirements identified through consultation by USACE with both CDFW
and USFWS.
c. Prior to the start of construction of the SNRC building and the recycled water pipeline
along 6th Street, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted to determine the
presence/absence of burrowing owl adjacent to the project area. The focused burrowing
owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and following the survey
guidelines included in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). If
burrowing owl is observed within undeveloped habitat within or immediately adjacent to
the project impact area, avoidance/minimization measures would be required such as
establishing a suitable buffer around the nest (typically 500-feet) and monitoring during
construction, or delaying construction until after the nest is no longer active and the
burrowing owls have left. However, if burrowing owl avoidance is infeasible, a qualified
biologist shall implement a passive relocation program in accordance with the Example
Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans of the CDFW
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).
d) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, preconstruction site clearing
surveys will be conducted of the project impact area within natural habitats. Any special
status ground-dwelling wildlife will be removed from the immediate impact area and
released in the nearby area.
e) Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of the discharge
including within City Creek channel resulting from perennial flow shall require on-site
replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in consultation with CDFW
and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio of at
least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 will reduce the project’s impact to
plant and wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS to a less-than-significant level
because they will ensure that impacts to listed plants and wildlife are either avoided entirely, or
that if impacts do occur, they will be appropriately compensated. The expertise USFWS and
CDFW will bring to the consultation process will further ensure maximum protection of these
resources.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.4-2: Direct or indirect impacts to riparian habitat and other
sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by CDFW or USFWS resulting from construction of the project.
Finding: Construction of the discharge structure could occur in areas containing two sensitive
natural communities: RAFSS and southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest. However,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District
that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 16 of 51
measures, construction of the project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to riparian
habitat and other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.4-2 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures will reduce potential project-related impacts
to special status plant species that may occur adjacent to the project site within City Creek to a
less than significant level. Potential project-related impacts may result from the construction of
the pipeline extension and discharge structure within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the
East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds.
a) Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the East
Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a focused botanical survey will be conducted to
determine the presence/absence of any of the special-status species with a moderate or
high potential to occur. The focused botanical survey will be conducted by a botanist or
qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of local special-status plant
species, and according to accepted protocol outlined by the CNPS and/or CDFW.
b) If a special status state or federally listed plant species is discovered in a project impact
area, informal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required prior to the
impact occurring to develop an appropriate avoidance strategy. Depending on the
sensitivity of the species, relocation, site restoration, or other habitat improvement actions
may be an acceptable option to avoid significant impacts, as determined through
consultation with the resource agencies.
c) If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not feasible, Valley District
shall quantify the impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed plant species
within the construction area and estimated perennial flow area and prepare a Biological
Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the
State Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall quantify compensation
requirements for affected plants species. Valley District shall implement the conservation
measures and compensation requirements identified through consultation by USACE
with both CDFW and USFWS.
d) Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of the discharge
including within the City Creek channel resulting from perennial flow shall require on-
site replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in consultation with
CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat would be mitigated at a ratio
of at least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The following measures will reduce potential project-related impacts
to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to Santa Ana sucker while contributing to the
long-term conservation of the species.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 17 of 51
a. The diversion of wastewater flow to the new SNRC shall not occur until either the
Upper Santa Ana HCP has been fully executed by the USFWS and CDFW or
Valley District’s SAS HMMP has been approved by the USFWS and CDFW.
b. The Valley District will be a signatory to the Upper SAR HCP that will include
the proposed project as a covered activity. The HCP will include a menu of
projects to be implemented by the signatory agencies that will create habitat,
restore habitat, and establish self-sustaining populations in the watershed. The
HCP will be approved by the CDFW and USFWS.
c. In the event that the Upper Santa Ana River HCP is not approved in time to meet
the project schedule, Valley District shall prepare and implement a SAS Habitat
Monitoring and Management Plan (HMMP) that identifies habitat improvement
actions, implementation methods, monitoring, and maintenance methods. The
HMMP will consist of measures listed below to offset direct and indirect impacts
to the Santa Ana sucker and its habitat resulting from the loss of 6 MGD of
discharged water. The HMMP will be implemented by a contracted, qualified and
permitted entity such as the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District
(RCRCD) in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW. The HMMP will identify
the goals and performance criteria of each conservation measure and will identify
annual reporting and work forecasting requirements. The HMMP will be
approved by the USFWS and CDFW under their authority to enforce the federal
and state Endangered Species Acts. The proposed diversion of 6 MGD from the
RIX discharge will not occur until the HMMP has been approved by USFWS and
CDFW. The HMMP will include the following elements:
a. SAS-1: Microhabitat Enhancements. The HMMP will identify
microhabitat enhancements within the upstream reach of the affected river
segment using natural materials to increase scour and pool formation. This
could include placement of large boulders and/or large woody debris to
increase velocity of flow and gravel bar patches as well as deep pool
refugia areas.
b. SAS-2: Aquatic Predator Control Program. The HMMP will include an
Aquatic Predator Control Program to be implemented within the upstream
reach of the affected river segment that will target and remove exotic fish,
amphibians, and reptiles immediately prior to the SAS spawning season.
c. SAS-3: Exotic Weed Management Program. The HMMP will include an
Exotic Weed Management Program targeting the removal of non-native
species such as tamarisk, castor bean, tree of heaven, etc. The HMMP will
include an annual maintenance and performance goal for non-native plant
removal within the upper reach of the affected river segment.
d. SAS-4: High Flow Pulse Events. The HMMP will identify means to create
high flow pulse events as needed based on substrate conditions, up to 2
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 18 of 51
times per year. The high flow pulse events would be implemented through
a cooperative agreement with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department.
e. SAS-5: Supplemental Water. Valley District will increase habitat
availability in Rialto Channel during the summer months by providing
cool supplemental water from nearby groundwater source to lower the
water temperature in this tributary. Supplemental water will be added to
the Rialto Channel when water temperatures reach 85 degrees.
Supplemental water could be pumped groundwater or other water source.
The discharge into the Rialto Drain will require a discharge permit from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
f. SAS-6: Upper Watershed SAS Population Establishment. The HMMP will
outline a plan for establishing a population of Santa Ana sucker in City
Creek, or other suitable watershed tributary, in coordination with the
Wildlife Agencies. The HMMP will identify measures to directly increase
the number of Santa Ana sucker in the SAR population, increase the
amount of suitable and occupied habitat in this watershed, and distribute
the risk of a catastrophic event between multiple locations. The HMMP
will identify the goals and success criteria of the establishment plan and
will identify the amount of financial assistance to be provided by Valley
District for the regionally beneficial population establishment program.
g. SAS-7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring program to
collect hydrology data in the segment of river between the RIX discharge
and Mission Boulevard. The data will include flow velocity and depth.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: The Contractor shall implement the following Best Management
Practices during construction of the pipeline and discharge structure adjacent to and within City
Creek to protect any adjacent sensitive natural communities that provide habitat for special-status
species.
a. The following water quality protection measures shall be implemented during
construction:
• Stationary engines, such as compressors, generators, light plants, etc., shall have
drip pans beneath them to prevent any leakage from entering runoff or receiving
waters.
• All construction equipment shall be inspected for leaks and maintained regularly
to avoid soil contamination. Leaks and smears of petroleum products will be
wiped clean prior to use.
• Any grout waste or spills will be cleaned up immediately and disposed of off-site.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 19 of 51
• Spill kits capable of containing hazardous spills will be stored on-site.
b. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of common and special status wildlife during
construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two-feet deep shall
be covered with tarp, plywood or similar materials at the close of each working day to
prevent animals from being trapped. Ramps may be constructed of earth fill or wooden
planks within deep walled trenches to allow for animals to escape, if necessary. Before
such holes or trenches are backfilled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped
animals. If trapped wildlife are observed, escape ramps or structures shall be installed
immediately to allow escape. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that
are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly
inspected for burrowing owls and nesting birds before the pipe is subsequently buried,
capped, or otherwise used or moved.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4 will reduce the project’s
construction-related impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to less-
than-significant levels because it will prevent construction of the project from adversely affecting
sensitive habitat or ensure that any impacts are properly compensated. The expertise USFWS
and CDFW will bring to the consultation process will further ensure maximum protection of
these resources.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.4-4: Construction-related interference with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Finding: Construction of the project could result in impacts to habitat that provide suitable
nesting habitat for migratory and resident bird species. However, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this
potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, construction of
the project would not result in interference with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measure that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.4-4 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: To minimize potential construction-related project impacts to avian
species that may be nesting on or immediately adjacent to the project area, the following
measures will reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level.
a. To avoid potential impacts to birds that may be nesting on or immediately adjacent to
the project area, construction of the project should avoid the general avian breeding
season of February through August.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 20 of 51
b. If construction must occur during the general avian breeding season, a pre-construction
clearance survey should be conducted within 30 days prior to the start of construction, to
determine if any active nests or sign of nesting activity is located on or immediately
adjacent to the project area, specifically at the proposed SNRC location. An additional
survey shall be conducted within 3 days prior to the commencement of construction
activities. If no nesting activity is observed during the pre-construction survey,
construction may commence without potential impacts to nesting birds.
c. If an active nest is observed, a suitable buffer will be placed around the nest, depending
on sensitivity of the nesting species, and onsite monitoring may be required during
construction to ensure no disturbance or take of the nest occurs. Construction may
continue in other areas of the project and construction activities may only encroach
within the buffer at the discretion of the monitoring biologist. The buffer will remain in
place until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer considered active.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 will reduce the project’s potential construction-
related impacts to wildlife nursery sites by ensuring that such impacts are avoided.
Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact 3.5-1: Substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical or archaeological resource.
Finding: As the project includes ground-disturbing activities, there is potential for discovery of
currently unknown subsurface archaeological deposits that could be affected by the project.
However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by
Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With
these mitigation measures, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical or archaeological resource.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.5-1 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, Valley District shall
retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all mitigation
related to cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase I survey for all
areas within the project impact area that have not received a survey within the last five years,
including treated conveyance pipeline corridors.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Prior to start of ground-disturbing activities, the qualified
archaeologist shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel.
Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be
encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery
of archaeological resources or human remains. Valley District shall ensure that construction
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 21 of 51
personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating
attendance.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological
materials, Valley District shall immediately cease all work activities within approximately 100
feet of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Construction shall
not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with Valley District on the
significance of the resource.
If it is determined that a discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under
the NHPA or a historical or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and
preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the
important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid
conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource.
Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the
resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through
excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Treatment Plan shall be prepared and
implemented by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with Valley District that provides for
the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the
archaeological resource. Valley District shall consult with appropriate Native American
representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure
cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are
considered.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 will reduce the project’s
impacts to the significance of historical or archaeological resources to less-than-significant levels
because in the event a new subsurface archaeological deposit is located, the measures will ensure
that any impacts to those resources is avoided.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.5-2: Direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Finding: Construction of the project has potential to result in excavation of currently unknown
paleontological resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant
effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not result in direct
or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measure that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.5-2 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be conducted for the
proposed SNRC in areas that are subject to excavations in excess of 15 feet below ground
surface. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 22 of 51
(QPM). The QPM, in consultation with Valley District, may reduce or increase monitoring based
on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors. If construction or other project
personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work,
work at the discovery location shall cease within 50 feet of the find until the QPM has assessed
the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 will reduce the project’s impacts to unique
paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features to less-than-significant levels
because it will ensure that impacts to such resources are avoided.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.5-3: Disturbance of human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Finding: It is possible that the project could unearth, expose, or disturb unknown human remains.
However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by
Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With
these mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant impacts to human remains.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measure that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.5-4 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure CUL-5: If human remains are encountered, Valley District shall halt work
within 100 feet of the find and contact the San Bernardino County Coroner in accordance with
PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended
by Assembly Bill 2641). The NAHC shall designate a MLD for the remains per PRC Section
5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, Valley District shall ensure that the
immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is
adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or
practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-5 will reduce the project’s impacts to human
remains to less-than-significant levels because it will ensure that if any human remains are
encountered during construction of the project, the remains will be handled properly and further
project activity will take the existence of the remains into account.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.5-4: Substantial adverse changes in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource.
Finding: Unknown subsurface tribal cultural resources could be encountered during construction
of the project. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the
environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not result in substantial adverse
changes in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 23 of 51
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.5-4 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, Valley District shall
retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all mitigation
related to cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase I survey for all
areas within the project impact area that have not received a survey within the last five years,
including treated conveyance pipeline corridors.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Prior to start of ground-disturbing activities, the qualified
archaeologist shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel.
Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be
encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery
of archaeological resources or human remains. Valley District shall ensure that construction
personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating
attendance.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological
materials, Valley District shall immediately cease all work activities within approximately 100
feet of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Construction shall
not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with Valley District on the
significance of the resource.
If it is determined that a discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under
the NHPA or a historical or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and
preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the
important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid
conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource.
Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the
resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through
excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Treatment Plan shall be prepared and
implemented by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with Valley District that provides for
the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the
archaeological resource. Valley District shall consult with appropriate Native American
representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure
cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are
considered.
Mitigation Measure CUL-5: If human remains are encountered, Valley District shall halt work
within 100 feet of the find and contact the San Bernardino County Coroner in accordance with
PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 24 of 51
by Assembly Bill 2641). The NAHC shall designate a MLD for the remains per PRC Section
5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, Valley District shall ensure that the
immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is
adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or
practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-5 will reduce the
project’s impacts to tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels because they will
ensure that tribal resources are either not affected, or if such resources are encountered they will
be handled properly.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially Significant Impact 3.9-1: Violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Finding: Construction of the project will involve soil-disturbing activities that could potentially
contribute pollutants to local waterways. However, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant
effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not result in
significant adverse impacts related to violations of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.9-1 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: Valley District will prepare a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) to ensure that the SNRC facility design complies with stormwater management goals
of the MS4.
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement a groundwater
monitoring program that includes installation of an array of groundwater monitoring wells
sufficient to characterize the effects of the discharge on local groundwater quality. If monitoring
shows that beneficial uses of the groundwater may become adversely affected by the discharge,
the monitoring program would require either modifications to treatment, modify the well
screened area by sealing the affected portion of the screen in the impacted groundwater bearing
zone, or compensation for adversely affected groundwater wells through replacement of the
affected well or through providing replacement water.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 will reduce the project’s
impacts to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements to less-than-significant
levels because they will ensure that construction activities associated with the project follow best
practices that will prevent the project from violating water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 25 of 51
Potentially Significant Impact 3.9-3: Substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on or offsite.
Finding: Construction of the project will involve excavation and grading that could contribute to
erosion, and operation of the project is expected to result in the growth of new riparian
vegetation that could alter drainage patterns. However, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this
potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the project
would not result in significant adverse impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the area.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.9-3 to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3: The City Creek discharge structures shall be designed with
velocity dissipation features as needed to prevent scour at the point of discharge. The design and
location of these discharge facilities would be approved by the SBCFCD and USACE to ensure
that they do not impede high flow capacity.
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4: Valley District shall prepare a City Creek Channel Vegetation
Management Plan in coordination with SBCFCD and CDFW that outlines vegetation
management measures to minimize impacts to the flood control function within City Creek. The
plan will include periodic vegetation trimming to remove large trees that could impact flood
control facilities downstream. The plan will outline schedule, permitting and reporting
requirements.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-3 and HYDRO-4 will reduce the project’s
impacts to existing drainage patterns to less-than-significant levels because they will ensure that
construction activities associated with the project follow best practices that will reduce the
potential for sediment to be washed into local waterways and that instream vegetation will not
interfere with the flood protection function of local waterways.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.9-4: Creation of contribution of runoff water which could
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
Finding: Construction of the project will decrease the overall perviousness of the project site,
thus potentially creating a new source of runoff. However, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this
potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the project
would not result in significant adverse impacts related to runoff water.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measure that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.9-4 to a less-than-significant
level:
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 26 of 51
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-5: Valley District shall prepare an Operational Manual for the
discharge to City Creek that identifies when discharges would be conveyed to other discharge
basins to avoid contributing to flood flows in City Creek during peak flow periods.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-5 will reduce the project’s runoff water impacts
to less-than-significant levels by ensuring that any contribution to runoff resulting from the
project will not reach City Creek during peak flow periods.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.9-7: Placement of structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Finding: The City Creek Discharge Alternative would place the discharge facility in the 100-
year flood zone. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the
environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant adverse
impacts due to placement of structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Valley District has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measure that will reduce
potentially significant impact 3.9-7 to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3: The City Creek discharge structures shall be designed with
velocity dissipation features as needed to prevent scour at the point of discharge. The design and
location of these discharge facilities would be approved by the SBCFCD and USACE to ensure
that they do not impede high flow capacity.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-5 will reduce the project’s impacts to flood
flows to less-than-significant levels because it will ensure that any discharge structure placed
within the City Creek 100-year flood zone will not adversely impede or redirect flood flows.
Noise and Vibration
Potentially Significant Impact 3.11-1: Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
Finding: It is anticipated that construction and operation of the project will comply with
applicable standards, but there is potential for noise impacts, particularly those resulting from
construction, to be significant. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant
effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not result in
exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of applicable standards, with the
exception of temporary construction noise.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 27 of 51
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.11-1 to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Valley District shall implement the following measures during
construction:
• Include design measures necessary to reduce construction noise levels to comply with
local noise ordinances. These measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.
• Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) away from the nearest noise-sensitive
land uses.
• Contiguous properties shall be notified in advance of construction activities. A contact
name and number shall be provided to contiguous properties to report excessive
construction noise.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Noise-generating machinery at the proposed SNRC shall be
enclosed within structures that are designed with insulation sufficient to comply with applicable
nighttime noise standards at the facility fenceline.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Valley District shall establish a 24-hour Hot-Line to serve the
local community. Valley District shall ensure that neighbor concerns are investigated and
addressed immediately. The Hot-Line number shall be provided to the neighboring properties
and be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the facility.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1, NOISE-2, and NOISE-3 will reduce most of
the impacts of the project’s exposure of persons to and generation of noise levels to less-than-
significant levels because they will ensure that noise levels resulting from the project adhere to
local noise standards. The exception is the temporary impact of construction noise, which is
discussed below as a significant and unavoidable impact of the project.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.11-3: Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Finding: Operation of the project would result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the
environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not result in substantial
permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above those that would exist
without the project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.11-3 to a less-than-
significant level:
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 28 of 51
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Noise-generating machinery at the proposed SNRC shall be
enclosed within structures that are designed with insulation sufficient to comply with applicable
nighttime noise standards at the facility fenceline.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Valley District shall establish a 24-hour Hot-Line to serve the
local community. Valley District shall ensure that neighbor concerns are investigated and
addressed immediately. The Hot-Line number shall be provided to the neighboring properties
and be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the facility.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 will reduce the project’s
permanent increases in ambient noise to less-than-significant levels because they will ensure that
the stationary equipment the project will utilize will comply with local noise standards and is
located so as to minimize the exposure of neighboring land uses to noise generated by the
project.
Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice
Potentially Significant Impact 3.12-4: Significant and disproportionate effects on the health or
environment of minority or low income populations.
Finding: The proposed SNRC, a wastewater treatment facility, would be located within a
disproportionately low income area and so the project could thus disproportionately affect a low
income population. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the
environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not disproportionately affect
the health or environment of minority or low income populations.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.12-1 to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Above-ground buildings/structures associated with the proposed
SNRC shall be designed to be consistent with the aesthetic qualities of existing structures in the
surrounding area to minimize contrasting features.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement an Odor Impact
Minimization Plan that includes a monitoring and reporting plan. The plan shall include the
following elements at a minimum:
• Identification of responsible parties
• Description of odor control system design and performance standards
• Odor control system operations plan
• Identification of fence-line odor monitoring and reporting program
• Achievable odor remediation actions and implementation protocol
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 29 of 51
• Local community outreach program
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Valley District shall implement the following measures during
construction:
• Include design measures necessary to reduce construction noise levels to comply with
local noise ordinances. These measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.
• Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) away from the nearest noise-sensitive
land uses.
• Contiguous properties shall be notified in advance of construction activities. A contact
name and number shall be provided to contiguous properties to report excessive
construction noise.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Noise-generating machinery at the proposed SNRC shall be
enclosed within structures that are designed with insulation sufficient to comply with applicable
nighttime noise standards at the facility fenceline.
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Valley District shall require the contractor to prepare a traffic control
plan that identifies specific traffic control measures to ensure access and safety on the local
roadway network. The traffic control plan will include the following elements at a minimum:
• A schedule of lane closures and road closures over the construction period
• Measures to maintain traffic flow at all times across the construction zone including
requiring flaggers to direct traffic when only one lane of traffic is available
• Detour routes and notification procedures if full road closures are needed
• Lane closure notifications to the City of Highland, City of San Bernardino and City of
Redlands and local emergency services providers
• Temporary signalization modifications (if any) for intersection signals
• On-road traffic control features and signage compliant with city traffic control
requirements
• Maintain access to residence and business driveways, public facilities, and recreational
resources at all times to the extent feasible; Minimize access disruptions to businesses
and residences
• Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with metal plates at the end of
each workday to accommodate traffic and access
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 30 of 51
• Identify all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g., horizontal
boring, directional drilling or night construction) will be used to minimize impacts to
traffic flow
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1, AIR-2, NOISE-1, NOISE-2, and TR-1 will
reduce the project’s potential impacts to the health and environment of minority or low income
populations to less-than-significant levels because they will reduce the project’s aesthetic, air
quality, noise, and traffic impacts to the neighboring population.
Public Services, Utilities, and Energy
Potentially Significant Impact 3.13-9: The project could encounter buried utilities.
Finding: Because construction of the project will involve excavation, construction activities
could result in encounters with buried utilities. However, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this
potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the project
would not adversely affect buried utilities.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.13-9 to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: During design and prior to construction, Valley District shall verify
the nature and location of underground utilities before the start of any construction that would
require excavation. Valley District shall notify and coordinate with public and private utility
providers at least 48 hours before the commencement of work adjacent to any located utility.
The contractor shall be required to notify the service provider in advance of service interruptions
to allow the service provider sufficient time to notify customers. The contractor shall be required
to coordinate timing of interruptions with the service providers to minimize the frequency and
duration of interruptions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 will reduce the project’s potential impact to
buried utilities to less-than-significant levels because it will ensure that construction activities do
not encounter buried utilities, or that if an encounter cannot be avoided, that any service
disruptions will be minimized.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.13-10: Operation of the proposed project would require
additional power that could affect local and regional energy supplies.
Finding: The estimated power demand of the completed project is expected to be approximately
1,422 kilowatts per day, or 12,453,900 kwh per year, which could increase the demand on local
energy supplies. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the
environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not adversely affect local and
regional energy supplies.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 31 of 51
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.13-10 to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Valley District shall require the use of energy efficient equipment,
including but not limited to, pumps, conveyance features, and lighting for the proposed SNRC
and pumping stations.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 will reduce the project’s potential impact to
buried utilities to less-than-significant levels because it will ensure that the project’s energy
demands will not exceed the capacity of local energy suppliers.
Transportation and Traffic
Potentially Significant Impact 3.15-1: The project would result in increases in vehicle trips by
construction workers, facility operators, haul trucks, and deliveries that could conflict with
applicable plans and policies regarding the effectiveness of the circulation system.
Finding: Construction and operation of the project would increase traffic volumes on roadways
serving the project sites. The impact would be most acute during project construction. However,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District
that mitigate or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation
measures, the project would not adversely affect traffic volumes.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.15-1 to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Valley District shall require the contractor to prepare a traffic control
plan that identifies specific traffic control measures to ensure access and safety on the local
roadway network. The traffic control plan will include the following elements at a minimum:
• A schedule of lane closures and road closures over the construction period
• Measures to maintain traffic flow at all times across the construction zone including
requiring flaggers to direct traffic when only one lane of traffic is available
• Detour routes and notification procedures if full road closures are needed
• Lane closure notifications to the City of Highland, City of San Bernardino and City of
Redlands and local emergency services providers
• Temporary signalization modifications (if any) for intersection signals
• On-road traffic control features and signage compliant with city traffic control
requirements
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 32 of 51
• Maintain access to residence and business driveways, public facilities, and recreational
resources at all times to the extent feasible; Minimize access disruptions to businesses
and residences
• Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with metal plates at the end of
each workday to accommodate traffic and access
• Identify all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g., horizontal
boring, directional drilling or night construction) will be used to minimize impacts to
traffic flow
Mitigation Measure TR-2: Valley District shall prepare a notification plan for communication
with affected residents and businesses prior to the start of construction. Advance public
notification shall include posting of notices and appropriate signage of construction activities.
The written notification shall include the construction schedule, the exact location and duration
of activities within each street (i.e., which lanes and access point/driveways would be blocked on
which days and for how long), and a toll-free telephone number for receiving questions for
complaints.
Mitigation Measure TR-3: Prior to installation of pipelines in East 5th Street, Valley District
shall coordinate with the City of Highland to ensure that the proposed East 5th Street curb and
drainage improvements are conducted simultaneously with the pipeline installation to avoid
impacting the street twice in a short period of time.
Mitigation Measure TR-4: Valley District shall ensure that deliveries, biosolids haul trips, and
worker shift transitions are discouraged during the period of 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 2:30 to 3:30
PM corresponding to peak pick up and drop off times at the high school.
Mitigation Measure TR-5: Valley District shall design turn-in and turnout ramps adjacent to 5th
Street to accommodate solids haul trips and material deliveries ingress and egress in a manner
that ensures safe traffic conditions. Roadway improvements including modifications to the curb
shall be approved by the City of Highland Public Works Department.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-1. TR-2, TR-2, TR-4, and TR-5 will reduce the
project’s potential impact to traffic to less-than-significant levels because they will ensure that
construction-related traffic impacts are reduced and that operations-related traffic impacts void
peak traffic times and ensuring that local roads can accommodate delivery and haul trucks.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.15-3: The project could result in a substantial increase in
hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
Finding: The project is expected to require modifications to 5th Street to accommodate ingress
and egress of delivery and haul trucks. However, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate or avoid this potential significant
effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the project would not result in a
substantial increase in hazards.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 33 of 51
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.15-3 to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure TR-4: Valley District shall ensure that deliveries, biosolids haul trips, and
worker shift transitions are discouraged during the period of 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 2:30 to 3:30
PM corresponding to peak pick up and drop off times at the high school.
Mitigation Measure TR-5: Valley District shall design turn-in and turnout ramps adjacent to 5th
Street to accommodate solids haul trips and material deliveries ingress and egress in a manner
that ensures safe traffic conditions. Roadway improvements including modifications to the curb
shall be approved by the City of Highland Public Works Department.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-4 and TR-5 will reduce the project’s potential
impact to traffic-related hazards to less-than-significant levels because it will ensure that any
modifications to 5th Street are designed to provide for traffic safety and will reduce the project’s
operation traffic during peak traffic times.
Potentially Significant Impact 3.15-4: The project could result in inadequate emergency access.
Finding: Construction of the project will have traffic impacts that could delay emergency vehicle
response times or otherwise disrupt delivery of emergency services. However, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by Valley District that mitigate
or avoid this potential significant effect on the environment. With these mitigation measures, the
project would not significantly affect emergency access.
Facts in Support of Finding: Valley District has adopted and will implement the following
mitigation measures that will reduce potentially significant impact 3.15-4 to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Valley District shall require the contractor to prepare a traffic control
plan that identifies specific traffic control measures to ensure access and safety on the local
roadway network. The traffic control plan will include the following elements at a minimum:
• A schedule of lane closures and road closures over the construction period
• Measures to maintain traffic flow at all times across the construction zone including
requiring flaggers to direct traffic when only one lane of traffic is available
• Detour routes and notification procedures if full road closures are needed
• Lane closure notifications to the City of Highland, City of San Bernardino and City of
Redlands and local emergency services providers
• Temporary signalization modifications (if any) for intersection signals
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 34 of 51
• On-road traffic control features and signage compliant with city traffic control
requirements
• Maintain access to residence and business driveways, public facilities, and recreational
resources at all times to the extent feasible; Minimize access disruptions to businesses
and residences
• Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with metal plates at the end of
each workday to accommodate traffic and access
• Identify all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g., horizontal
boring, directional drilling or night construction) will be used to minimize impacts to
traffic flow
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-4 will reduce the project’s potential impact to
emergency access to less-than-significant levels because it will reduce the project’s construction-
related impacts and thus avoid interference with emergency services.
The EVWD Board finds, based on the EIR and the entire record, that the EIR’s conclusions
regarding potentially significant impacts that will be mitigated or avoided are correct.
3. Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR identified several impacts of the project that will be significant and unavoidable, which
impacts are described below. Additional information regarding significant and unavoidable
impacts is also contained in the statement of overriding considerations in Section 2 of this
document.
Air Quality
Construction Emissions of NOx.
Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible
mitigation measures that would reduce construction NOx emissions below the thresholds of
significance that have been adopted for this project. In addition, the project alternatives that
would fulfill the project objectives, described herein and in the EIR, would result in similar
construction-related NOx emissions and would not reduce or avoid this impact. Therefore, the
impact of the proposed project’s construction-related NOx emissions is considered significant
and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the proposed project or any of the project
alternatives would necessarily result in NOx emissions. The NOx emissions construction of the
project is expected to produce exceed the thresholds of significance adopted for the
environmental analysis of the project. Therefore, the project would result in a significant impact
to air quality. Valley District has adopted mitigation measure AIR-1 to reduce this impact, but
even with this measure in place the maximum NOx emissions associated with construction
would not be reduced below the applicable threshold of significance. It is not feasible to further
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 35 of 51
reduce construction-related NOx emissions. For example, while one commenter suggested that
daily construction air emissions could be reduced by extending or prolonging the construction
period, the EIR concludes that extending the construction period would serve only to extend the
daily air emission impacts and also exacerbate other construction-related impacts, including
noise and traffic impacts, while increasing also increasing costs. No other mitigation measures
were suggested in comments on this impact. Accordingly, because Valley District has adopted
all feasible mitigation measures but those measures will not reduce the impact to less than
significant, this air quality impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Impact of Construction-Related NOx Emissions
Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible
mitigation measures that would reduce the project’s construction-related contribution to
cumulative NOx levels below the thresholds of significance that have been adopted for this
project. In addition, the project alternatives that would fulfill the project objectives, described
herein and in the EIR, would result in a similar contribution to cumulative NOx levels and would
not reduce or avoid this impact. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project’s contribution to
cumulative NOx emissions is considered significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the proposed project or any of the project
alternatives would necessarily result in NOx emissions. The NOx emissions during construction
of the project is expected to exceed the thresholds of significance adopted for the environmental
analysis of the project. Therefore, the project would result in a significant impact to air quality.
Valley District has adopted mitigation measure AIR-1 to reduce this impact, but even with this
measure in place the maximum NOx emissions associated with construction would not be
reduced below the applicable threshold of significance. As noted above, it is not feasible to
further reduce construction-related NOx emissions and no other mitigation measures were
suggested in public comments. Thus, it is not feasible to further reduce construction-related
NOx emissions. Accordingly, as with construction emissions of NOx, this cumulative air quality
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Biological Resources
Impacts to Santa Ana Sucker
Finding: The project will eventually divert up to 6 MGD from the Santa Ana River, which is
designated as critical habitat and occupied by the threatened Santa Ana sucker. Even though the
quantifiable effect of this diversion can be deemed comparatively small, because of the heavy
existing stressors on the SAS and its habitat, even a small incremental impact is properly deemed
significant in this context. The same conclusion applies to project alternative 5, described herein
and in the EIR, because that alternative would also have an incremental impact that, in this
context, is properly deemed significant, even though that alternative involves a smaller diversion
from the Santa Ana River. As it is not feasible to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. This significant and unavoidable
impact is both a project specific impact and a cumulative impact.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 36 of 51
Facts in Support of Finding: A key purpose of the proposed project is production and use of a
local supply of tertiary treated wastewater. As a result, less water will be discharged to the Santa
Ana River, thus reducing SAR flows. Due to the highly stressed status of the Santa Ana sucker
and its habitat, a reduction in Santa Ana River flows is properly deemed significant.
Valley District has proposed a robust mitigation plan (Mitigation Measure BIO-3) to ameliorate
this significant impact by addressing a host of physical and biological factors, other than river
flows, that have been adversely affecting the overall fitness and long-term survival of the SAS
population in the Santa Ana River. By addressing these factors rather than focusing on flows
alone, Valley District intends to broadly reduce pressure on the species, thus charting a course
towards species recovery. However, given the current ecological conditions for the Santa Ana
sucker, Valley District cannot conclude that its mitigation strategy, no matter how robust, will
fully avoid or rectify the adverse impact of reduced river flows and associated habitat loss.
Valley District will attempt to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed project’s reduction of
flows by improving other strategic habitat variables, but cannot assume that improving those
other habitat variables will fully mitigate impacts related to flow reductions.
In other words, while Valley District has proposed a comprehensive mitigation strategy that has
the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the impact to the SAS will remain significant
and unavoidable. It is not feasible to mitigate this impact to less-than-significant levels under the
conservative approach Valley District has adopted for the analysis of SAS impacts, because
doing so would involve a watershed-wide, multi-pronged, approach to conservation of the
species that addresses baseline conditions currently limiting the health, abundance, and
distribution of the species; including but not limited to, lack of redundant spawning and refugia
tributaries, physiological stressors such as pollution and water temperature, highly abundant
predator populations throughout the entire Santa Ana River, off-road vehicular traffic through
occupied stream reaches, large streamside homeless encampments, and barriers to fish migration
throughout the system to promote genetic diversity. These issues have put stress on the sucker
populations and its habitat for decades. Valley District has neither the funds nor the authority to
impose or manage that level of mitigation. Furthermore, such a watershed-wide mitigation
obligation would far exceed the proportional contribution of the project to stress on the SAS,
which is all that Valley District is required to mitigate under CEQA. Population-level
improvement must be accomplished in partnership with many local and federal agencies that
have the ability to coordinate both authority and funding opportunities in order to achieve
maximum conservation value. Valley District fully supports such an approach to recovery of the
SAS, which is precisely why it is fully committed to the Upper SAR HCP and anticipates the
participation of local and regional agencies that must address SAS impacts.
As it is not feasible to mitigate the impacts of reduced flows to less-than-significant levels, this
impact is considered significant and unavoidable on both a project-specific and cumulative
level.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 37 of 51
Noise
Temporary Construction Noise
Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible
mitigation measures to reduce construction noise to less-than-significant levels during the entire
construction period. In addition, the project alternatives that would fulfill the project objectives,
described herein and in the EIR, would result in similar construction activities and thus would
not reduce or avoid the project’s construction-related noise impacts. Therefore, the construction-
related noise impacts associated with the proposed project is considered significant and
unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the project or any of the project alternatives would
result in a substantial (albeit temporary) increase in noise during the construction period. This
noise impact is considered significant. Valley District has adopted mitigation measure NOISE-1
to reduce this impact, but even with this measure in place noise levels associated with
construction would not be reduced below the applicable threshold of significance. It is not
feasible to further reduce construction-related noise emissions given existing limitations of
available noise-control devices and construction strategies, and so this noise impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice
Removal of an Obstacle to Growth
Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible
mitigation measures to reduce the project’s effect on growth to less-than-significant levels, and
there is no alternative that meets the project objectives and also avoids this impact. Therefore,
the project’s impact on growth is considered significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding: A primary purpose of the project is to treat and reuse wastewater
generated in EVWD’s service area. Construction of a new wastewater treatment plant will
necessarily remove an obstacle to growth because it will expand the regional capacity for
wastewater treatment. In addition, the groundwater recharge component of the project could also
support future growth. Because the project will remove an obstacle to growth, this impact is
considered significant. Put another way, the proposed project will accommodate future growth,
but will not induce growth beyond that planned for in local General Plans. It is not feasible to
mitigate this impact because Valley District does not have the authority to approve or limit
growth and because the growth that will be accommodated is growth that has already been
approved in various general plans. There are no mitigation measures that were suggested that
would reduce this impact to a less than significant level; accordingly, this impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
The EVWD Board finds, based on the EIR and the entire record, that the EIR’s conclusions
regarding the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts are correct. Further, the EVWD
Board finds, based on the EIR and the entire record, there are no additional feasible mitigation
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 38 of 51
measures within the power of EVWD that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant and
unavoidable impact of the project.
F. Findings Regarding Alternatives
The range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR included only those alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). As directed by CEQA, the
alternatives were focused on feasible alternatives that would reduce or avoid significant
environmental impacts associated with the project. Alternatives considered in an EIR need to
attain most of the project objectives in order to be considered feasible.
Valley District’s consideration of a broad range of alternatives to the SNRC project is described
below. Alternatives that were considered but found to be infeasible prior to the EIR are described
first. Second, the alternatives evaluated in the EIR are described and their associated
environmental impacts are summarized. The reasoning behind rejection of each of the evaluated
alternatives is provided.
The EVWD Board finds, based on the EIR and the entire record, that the EIR’s description,
discussion, reasoning and conclusions regarding alternatives are correct. Further, the EVWD
Board finds, based on the EIR and the entire record, there are no additional feasible alternatives
within the power of EVWD that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant and
unavoidable impact of the project.
1. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that an EIR “should also identify any alternatives
that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and
briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.” The following
discussion describes alternatives that were considered but not evaluated in detail in the EIR.
EVWD Headquarters Alternative
The EVWD Headquarters Alternative would construct the SNRC at the EVWD Headquarters on
an undeveloped parcel south of the Headquarters building. The southern parcel has sloping
terrain with native undisturbed vegetation and boulder outcroppings. The parcel is within close
proximity to several existing and planned residential communities, including the proposed Arnott
Ranch Development which is directly to the northwest of the EVWD Headquarters. The site is
approximately 400 to 600 feet higher than the majority of the EVWD service area. Therefore,
this site would require pumping raw sewage a long distance up hill, significantly increasing
energy usage and risk of spills. For these reasons, the EVWD Headquarters Alternative was
rejected for further consideration as infeasible.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 39 of 51
Flood Control District Parcel Alternative
This alternative would construct the SNRC at a parcel owned by the SBCFCD. The parcel is
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of SR-210 and 5th Street. The southeast portion
of the parcel is approximately 13 acres. This parcel is located in a heavily traveled area near the
5th Street exit off of SR-210. Additionally, Greenspot Village and Marketplace is a proposed
major development east of the flood control district parcel. Due to the elevation of the site,
surrounding commercial development, and ownership of the parcel, the site was rejected from
further consideration.
Recharge Site Alternative
The use of the Santa Ana River Spreading Grounds and Mill Creek Spreading Grounds were
considered and determined not to be feasible since they are located too far from the proposed
SNRC facility and too high in elevation. The energy requirements to convey treated water to the
basins would make the alternative infeasible. In addition, impacts to natural habitats and to the
existing stormwater recharge operations conducted by the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District would make the alternative infeasible.
Expanded Trunk Sewer Alternative
The SNRC is proposed to accommodate existing and future wastewater flows within the EVWD
service area. Valley District considered an alternative to constructing a new wastewater
treatment plant that would involve expanding the trunk sewer connecting EVWD collection
system to the SBWRP. The Expanded Trunk Sewer Alternative would expand the diameter of
the existing trunk sewer leading to the SBWRP. The sewer expansion would require open trench
construction within city streets to convey existing and future wastewater flows to the SBWRP.
Impacts of pipeline installation would be greater than the proposed project due to the size of the
pipe and depth requirements of the gravity fed sewer. Once installed, none of the operational
effects of the proposed project would occur. The Expanded Trunk Sewer Alternative was
rejected for failing to meet the project objectives of regional water supply benefits
2. Alternatives Considered in the EIR
In total, the EIR considered three variations of the proposed project (“Recharge Alternatives”)
and five Project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative.
Recharge Alternatives
The subsections of Chapter 3 of the DEIR include evaluations of three treated water conveyance
system alternatives and their potential impacts on various resource areas. One alternative would
discharge treated water into City Creek, one would discharge treated water into Redlands Basins,
and one would convey treated water to the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds. The East Twin
Creek Spreading Grounds would be the farthest and highest in elevation, requiring higher energy
usage. Discharge to City Creek would create riparian and aquatic habitat within City Creek.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 40 of 51
However, the City Creek conveyance alignments would require crossing SR-210, increasing
installation difficulty. The DEIR identifies multiple alignments to reach City Creek from the
SNRC, but each alternative would require crossing flood control facilities and SR-210. The
Redlands Basins alternative would require approval from the City of Redlands since the basins
would be shared with the City’s discharge.
Each of the conveyance and discharge alternatives would require open trench construction within
city streets, but in differing locations. Each of the alternatives would result in groundwater
replenishment in the Bunker Hill groundwater basin. Each of the discharge locations will require
obtaining a discharge permit from the RWQCB. Discharge to City Creek will require an NPDES
permit since the creek is a Waters of the United States. Each of the treated water conveyance
system alternatives would meet all of the project objectives, and none of the treated water
conveyance alternatives would avoid a significant impact resulting from the proposed project.
Alternative 1: No-Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative represents a “no build” scenario in which the proposed project would
not be constructed or operated. It assumes that the proposed SNRC, treated water conveyance
pipeline system and sewage collection facilities along with other elements of the project would
not be implemented and no project components would be constructed. Under the No Project
Alternative, EVWD would continue to convey wastewater to the City of San Bernardino for
secondary treatment at SBWRP which in turn sends it for tertiary treatment at the RIX Facility
which discharges to the Santa Ana River. There would be no increase in the use of recycled
water to solve regional water supply challenges and there would be no use of recycled water for
multiple beneficial uses within the upper Santa Ana River watershed. The No Project Alternative
would not provide an opportunity to increase replenishment of the Bunker Hill groundwater
basin. Additionally, there would be no increase in the operational flexibility within the San
Bernardino Valley region by advancing the integrated recycled water management objectives of
the region.
The No Project Alternative would avoid each of the significant impacts of the project but would
not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, under this Alternative, future wastewater
treatment needs would not be met, resulting in a new significant and unavoidable impact to
public utilities.
Alternative 2: Sterling Property
The SNRC Location at the Sterling Property would construct the SNRC at a parcel located west
of SR-210 near the intersection of Sterling Avenue and 5th Street in the City of San Bernardino.
The 22-acre site is undeveloped and characterized by low lying shrubs and grasses. The
surrounding areas are zoned for commercial and light industrial, and existing surrounding land
uses consist of the SBIA located directly to the south, and commercial and low density
residential land uses to the north, east and west. The adjacent parcels to the north and west are
undeveloped. There is an SBIA flight easement that crosses the site in a northwest/southeast
direction on the west parcel.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 41 of 51
The Sterling Property Project Alternative would meet all of the project objectives but would not
reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
Alternative 3: Reduced Treatment Capacity
The Reduced Capacity Treatment Plant Alternative would construct the SNRC similar to the
proposed project, but it would be sized to accommodate 6 MGD rather than 10 MGD. Each of
the other project components would be similar to the proposed project including the collection
system modifications, treated water conveyance system, SAR pipeline, and supplemental water
facilities.
The Reduced Treatment Capacity Project Alternative would meet all of the project objectives but
would not reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
Alternative 4: Plunge Creek Basins
The Plunge Creek Basins Alternative would construct a treated water conveyance system to
recharge basins to be constructed near the confluence of Plunge Creek and the SAR. Under this
Alternative, each of the other components would be constructed similar to the proposed project
including the SNRC, collection system modifications, SAR pipeline, and supplemental water
facilities. The Plunge Creek Basins would be located in an area proposed by the SBCFCD for
new flood control basins. A pipeline from the SNRC would be installed within Greenspot Road
eastward to Church Street and south to the new basins. The Plunge Creek Basins would be
constructed either by Valley District or SBCFCD.
The Plunge Creek Basins Project Alternative would meet all of the project objectives but would
not reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
Alternative 5: Reduced Diversion
The Reduced Diversion Alternative would construct the SNRC, collection system modifications,
and treated water conveyance system similar to the proposed project, but would return 3 MGD at
all times to the RIX discharge point through the Santa Ana River pipeline. The Treatment
Facility would have the same 10 MGD capacity, but would produce 3 MGD less recycled water
for groundwater replenishment.
Alternative 5 would meet the project objectives but to a lesser degree since less recycled water
would be available for groundwater replenishment. The potential quantifiable significant impact
to Santa Ana sucker through habitat modifications would occur at a reduced scale since only 3
MGD of flow would be diverted. However, Alternative 5 would not avoid any of the significant
and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, primarily because it would still result in
approximately a 10% reduction in the Santa Ana River flow below the RIX facility (as noted in
the EIR, the reduced discharge study (ESA 2015b) concluded that a diversion of 6 MGD from
the Santa Ana River at the RIX discharge would reduce total flows by 18-21%, and so a 3 MGD
reduction would reduce flows by approximately 10%), which would produce a significant
incremental impact to an already-stressed Santa Ana River aquatic habitat with reduced
ecological function. Alternative 5 would meet the water supply and groundwater replenishment
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 42 of 51
objectives of the project but to a lesser degree. As a result Alternative 5 would not produce as
many benefits related to the treatment and reuse of locally produced wastewater to meet local
needs.
3. The Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency to identify which of the
alternatives other than the no-project alternative is environmentally superior. The EIR at Chapter
6.4 concludes that the proposed project is the environmentally superior alternative. Alternatives
2, 3, 4, and 5 are not environmentally superior because they would not result in any meaningful
reduction in environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. Alternative 5 would
divert 3 MGD less from the Santa Ana River than the proposed project, which represents
approximately 10% of the total flow of the Santa Ana River below the RIX facility. Under the
methodology Valley District has adopted for determining significance to the Santa Ana sucker,
Alternative 5 would therefore still result in significant and unavoidable Santa Ana sucker
impacts because like the proposed project it would have an incremental adverse impact on
already stressed Santa Ana sucker habitat. The benefits of a new local water supply, including
the benefits of groundwater recharge and reduced reliance on imported water supplies, would be
reduced with Alternative 5. Further, as the full suite of mitigation measures, particularly the
HMMP, set forth in the EIR is tied to the impacts of the proposed project, it is reasonable to
conclude that an alternative with fewer quantifiable impacts would not result in mitigation
activities on the same scale as the proposed project.
Two commenters questioned the EIR’s conclusion that the proposed project is the
environmentally superior alternative. Valley District has considered the comments and does not
find them persuasive, as they appear to stem from a misunderstanding of the importance of Santa
Ana River flows, the project’s water supply objectives, and the proposed mitigation measures.
The Santa Ana sucker needs water to survive, but the USFWS – the agency with primary
responsibility for protecting the Santa Ana sucker – has noted that the volume of flow in the
Santa Ana River is not the only factor that affects the long-term viability of the sucker in the
Santa Ana River watershed. Thus, even a 3 MGD diversion from the Santa Ana River – which
represents approximately 10% of the flow below the RIX facility, can be expected to result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to the sucker. In other words, in light of the stressed nature
of the system, Valley District cannot conclude that halving the amount of the diversion from the
Santa Ana River will also halve the impacts. As a consequence, the mitigation strategy
proposed in connection with the SNRC project is designed to address a suite of non-flow factors
that with management will strategically improve habitat conditions (i.e. availability of spawning
substrate, water temperatures, predation) that are believed to currently limit the health and
abundance of the population such that the overall ecological function of the existing habitat will
be improved and Santa Ana sucker and provide significant conservation benefit to the species.
In light of the potential impacts of even a small diversion from the stressed Santa Ana River, the
value of new water supplies of up to 6 MGD, and the benefits expected from the mitigation
measures that will be implemented if the proposed project is approved, the EVWD Board finds
that the EIR’s conclusion regarding the environmentally superior alternative is correct.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 43 of 51
G. Additional Findings
1. Certification of the EIR
In accordance with CEQA, EVWD and its Board have considered the effects of the project on
the environment, as shown in the DEIR, FEIR, and the whole of the administrative record, prior
to taking any action to approve one or more of the project sites. The FEIR was released for
public review and presented to the EVWD Board on March 4, 2016, and was the subject of a
Valley District workshop, which EVWD attended, on March 10, 2016. On March 15, 2016,
Valley District, the lead agency for the SNRC project, certified that the EIR was prepared and
completed in compliance with CEQA, and adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sterling
Natural Resource Center Project. The EVWD Board now certifies that it has reviewed and
considered the DEIR and FEIR and the information relating to the environmental impacts of the
proposed project contained in those documents and that the EIR has been prepared and
completed in compliance with CEQA. By adopting these Findings, the EVWD Board ratifies
and adopts the conclusions of the FEIR as set forth in these Findings, except where such
conclusions are specifically modified by these Findings. The FEIR and these Findings represent
the independent judgment and analysis of the EVWD Board.
2. Changes to the DEIR; No Need to Recirculate
In the course of responding to comments received during the public review and comment period
on the DEIR, certain portions of the DEIR have been modified and new information has been
added for further clarification. None of this information has revealed the existence of: (1) a
significant new environmental impact that would result from the project or an adopted mitigation
measure; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) a feasible
project alternative or mitigation measure not adopted that is considerably different from others
analyzed in the DEIR that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project; or (4) information that indicates that the public was deprived of a meaningful
opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR.
Consequently, the EVWD Board finds that the amplifications and clarifications made to the
DEIR in the FEIR do not collectively or individually constitute significant new information
within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5.
Recirculation of the DEIR or any portion thereof, is therefore not required.
In addition, the EVWD Board finds that none of the three conditions set forth in Section 15052
of the CEQA Guidelines are present.
3. Evidentiary Basis for Findings
These Findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record of Valley District, which
is now before EVWD. The references to the DEIR and FEIR set forth in these Findings are for
ease of reference and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon
for these Findings.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 44 of 51
H. Adoption of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
1. Mitigation Measures Adopted
Except as otherwise noted, the mitigation measures herein referenced are those identified in the
FEIR and adopted by Valley District and EVWD as set forth in the MMRP.
2. Impact After Implementation of Mitigation Measures.
Except as otherwise stated in these Findings, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15092, the
EVWD Board finds that environmental effects of the project will not be significant or will be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the adopted mitigation measures. Valley District has
substantially lessened or eliminated all significant environmental effects where feasible. The
EVWD Board has determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment that are
found to be unavoidable under CEQA Guidelines §15091 are acceptable due to overriding
considerations as described in CEQA Guidelines §15093. These overriding considerations
consist of specific environmental, economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of
the project, which justify approval of the project and outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects of the project, as more fully stated in Section II (Statement of Overriding
Considerations). Except as otherwise stated in these Findings, the EVWD Board finds that the
mitigation measures incorporated into and imposed upon the project will not have new
significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the EIR.
3. Relationship of Findings and MMRP to the FEIR
These Findings and the MMRP are intended to summarize and describe the contents and
conclusions of the DEIR and FEIR for policymakers and the public. For purposes of clarity,
these impacts and mitigation measures may be worded differently from the provisions in the
FEIR and/or some provisions may be combined. Nonetheless, Valley District and EVWD will
implement all measures contained in the FEIR. In the event that there is any inconsistency
between the descriptions of mitigation measures in these Findings or the MMRP and the FEIR,
Valley District and EVWD will implement the measures as they are described in the FEIR. In
the event a mitigation measure recommended in the FEIR has inadvertently been omitted from
these Findings or from the MMRP, such a mitigation measure is hereby adopted and
incorporated in the Findings and/or MMRP as applicable.
II. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project, and authorizes a
public agency to approve a project with significant and unavoidable environmental impacts if it
concludes that such impacts are acceptable because they are outweighed by the benefits of the
project.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 45 of 51
Consistent with California Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15093 and 15096, Valley District and EVWD have made a good-faith effort to
eliminate, minimize, and render less-than-significant all potentially significant adverse impacts
that may result from the proposed project through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
Despite this effort, the EVWD Board concludes that the proposed project is likely to result in
significant and adverse impacts to aquatic biological resources, among other effects. However,
after considering the Sterling Natural Resource Center EIR and the entire administrative record
and weighing the proposed Project’s benefits against its potential environmental impacts, the
EVWD Board concludes that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh its potential
significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
In light of the project’s water supply and proposed habitat benefits, Valley District and EVWD
propose to approve and carry out the project despite the fact that it is not possible to feasibly
mitigate all of the project’s potential adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels. Drought,
limits on imported water, and cutbacks in Colorado River supplies all increase the need to
develop locally-produced reliable water supplies like the supplies that would be generated as a
result of the project. The State Water Resources Control Board and other water districts have
championed the need for the indirect potable reuse of tertiary treated wastewater for conjunctive
use projects like the proposed project as a way to meet these needs. At the same time, water
agencies in the region must not disregard the impacts their projects may have on instream flows
and the resulting effects on sensitive species like the Santa Ana sucker. Balancing these
competing needs for water, Valley District has endeavored to develop a mitigation strategy that
will result in numerous habitat improvements that will benefit aquatic species and, in particular,
chart a course towards recovery of the Santa Ana sucker. Although the impacts to the Santa Ana
sucker cannot be fully mitigated, Valley District and EVWD, with the support of the USFWS,
have concluded that this approach will allow it to reap the benefits of the project while
ameliorating, to the greatest extent feasible, the project’s impacts on the Santa Ana sucker and
helping to assure a reliable water supply for the ratepayers of Valley District and EVWD.
A. Impacts of the Project
The EIR identified numerous potentially significant but mitigatable impacts, and Valley District
and EVWD have adopted mitigation measures that will reduce those impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
However, the EIR also identified five impacts that will remain significant after the
implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures:
• The project-specific impact of construction-related NOx emissions.
• The cumulative impact of construction-related NOx emissions.
• The impact to the federally-listed Santa Ana sucker resulting from reducing Santa Ana
River flows.
• The impact of construction-related noise.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 46 of 51
• The impact of removing an obstacle to growth.
These five impacts are significant, unavoidable impacts of the SNRC project.
B. Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures incorporated into the EIR and the MMRP demonstrate a commitment
by Valley District and EVWD to avoid, minimize, and compensate for environmental impacts of
the Project. Mitigation measures incorporated to specifically address the impacts that have been
deemed significant and unavoidable include the following:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: For off-road construction equipment greater than 50 HP, all engines
shall be certified as USEPA Tier 3 at a minimum and Tier 4 where available.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The following measures will reduce potential project-related impacts
to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to Santa Ana sucker while contributing to the
long-term conservation of the species.
a. The diversion of wastewater flow to the new SNRC shall not occur until either the
Upper Santa Ana HCP has been fully executed by the USFWS and CDFW or
Valley District’s SAS HMMP has been approved by the USFWS and CDFW.
b. Valley District will be a signatory to the Upper SAR HCP that will include the
proposed project as a covered activity. The HCP will include a menu of projects
to be implemented by the signatory agencies that will create habitat, restore
habitat, and establish self-sustaining populations in the watershed. The HCP will
be approved by the CDFW and USFWS.
c. In the event that the Upper Santa Ana River HCP is not approved in time to meet
the project schedule, Valley District shall prepare and implement a SAS Habitat
Monitoring and Management Plan (HMMP) that identifies habitat improvement
actions, implementation methods, monitoring, and maintenance methods. The
HMMP will consist of measures listed below to offset direct and indirect impacts
to the Santa Ana sucker and its habitat resulting from the loss of 6 MGD of
discharged water. The HMMP will be implemented by a contracted, qualified and
permitted entity such as the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District
(RCRCD) in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW. The HMMP will identify
the goals and performance criteria of each conservation measure and will identify
annual reporting and work forecasting requirements. The HMMP will be
approved by the USFWS and CDFW under their authority to enforce the federal
and state Endangered Species Acts. The proposed diversion of 6 MGD from the
RIX discharge will not occur until the HMMP has been approved by USFWS and
CDFW. The HMMP will include the following elements:
a. SAS-1: Microhabitat Enhancements. The HMMP will identify
microhabitat enhancements within the upstream reach of the affected river
segment using natural materials to increase scour and pool formation. This
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 47 of 51
could include placement of large boulders and/or large woody debris to
increase velocity of flow and gravel bar patches as well as deep pool
refugia areas.
b. SAS-2: Aquatic Predator Control Program. The HMMP will include an
Aquatic Predator Control Program to be implemented within the upstream
reach of the affected river segment that will target and remove exotic fish,
amphibians, and reptiles immediately prior to the SAS spawning season.
c. SAS-3: Exotic Weed Management Program. The HMMP will include an
Exotic Weed Management Program targeting the removal of non-native
species such as tamarisk, castor bean, tree of heaven, etc. The HMMP will
include an annual maintenance and performance goal for non-native plant
removal within the upper reach of the affected river segment.
d. SAS-4: High Flow Pulse Events. The HMMP will identify means to create
high flow pulse events as needed based on substrate conditions, up to 2
times per year. The high flow pulse events would be implemented through
a cooperative agreement with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department.
e. SAS-5: Supplemental Water. Valley District will increase habitat
availability in Rialto Channel during the summer months by providing
cool supplemental water from nearby groundwater sources to lower the
water temperature in this tributary. Supplemental water will be added to
the Rialto Channel when water temperatures reach 85 degrees.
Supplemental water could be pumped groundwater or another water
source. The discharge into the Rialto Drain will require a discharge permit
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
f. SAS-6: Upper Watershed SAS Population Establishment. The HMMP will
outline a plan for establishing a population of Santa Ana sucker in City
Creek, or other suitable watershed tributary, in coordination with the
Wildlife Agencies. The HMMP will identify measures to directly increase
the number of Santa Ana sucker in the SAR population, increase the
amount of suitable and occupied habitat in this watershed, and distribute
the risk of a catastrophic event between multiple locations. The HMMP
will identify the goals and success criteria of the establishment plan and
will identify the amount of financial assistance to be provided by Valley
District for the regionally beneficial population establishment program.
g. SAS-7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring program to
collect hydrology data in the segment of river between the RIX discharge
and Mission Boulevard. The data will include flow velocity and depth.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 48 of 51
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Valley District shall implement the following measures during
construction:
• Include design measures necessary to reduce construction noise levels to comply with
local noise ordinances. These measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.
• Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) away from the nearest noise-sensitive
land uses.
• Contiguous properties shall be notified in advance of construction activities. A contact
name and number shall be provided to contiguous properties to report excessive
construction noise.
C. Benefits of the Project
1. The Project Will Serve Existing and Future Wastewater Treatment Needs Within
the East Valley Water District Service Area
a. Existing Needs
The proposed SNRC would have a capacity of 10 million gallons per day, enough to serve the
wastewater treatment needs of approximately 167,000 people. By treating the wastewater of the
current and future planned residents of the EVWD service area, the project will reduce demand
upon existing wastewater treatment plants, and, more importantly, will increase local control
over the costs of wastewater treatment and locally-available recycled water, as well as the use of
that water.
b. Future Needs
Compared to 2015, the population of San Bernardino Valley region is expected to increase by
approximately 94,352 people by the year 2020, and by approximately 288,652 people by the year
2035. EVWD expects the population in its service area to increase by approximately 24,000
people by 2020, and by approximately 41,000 people by 2035, a 40% increase.
Increases in population necessarily increase the need for wastewater treatment. The proposed
SNRC would increase the total wastewater treatment capacity in the San Bernardino Valley by
up to 10 million gallons per day. The ability to treat 10 MGD at the SNRC will accommodate
the expected population growth, eliminating the need to construct other facilities or increase the
capacity of existing facilities to meet the needs of the growing population. Neither Valley
District nor EVWD has authority as a land-use planning agency to control growth in the region;
those decisions are the responsibility of land-use agencies. Valley District and EVWD, by
contrast, have the responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient facilities to meet the needs of
expected growth. This project accommodates expected growth rather than encouraging new
growth. Nonetheless, Valley District and EVWD are treating the effects of growth associated
with the project as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact on the environment.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 49 of 51
By accommodating the wastewater treatment needs associated with the expected population
growth, though, the SNRC project will provide a valuable economic benefit to the San
Bernardino Valley Region by ensuring population growth is not unduly constrained. Combined
with the improved local control over wastewater treatment costs, the overall effect will be a
considerable economic benefit to the region.
2. The Project Will Result in Increased Local Availability and Use of Recycled
Water
a. The Project Will Create New Opportunities for Groundwater Replenishment
Groundwater is a significant component of the local water supply in the San Bernardino Valley
region. Reliance on groundwater typically increases when surface water supplies are short, and
decreases when surface water supplies are ample. However, “natural” groundwater recharge
during periods of higher surface flows is not always enough to replenish aquifers that are
depleted during dry periods. “Artificial” groundwater recharge, involving spreading surface
water in recharge areas so that it can percolate into the ground and replenish the aquifer, has
become an important strategy in regions that depend heavily on groundwater supplies.
The SNRC project will make a new source of recycled water that can be used to artificially
replenish groundwater in the region. Increased groundwater replenishment will result in benefits
by not only enhancing groundwater supplies, but by helping to avoid negative consequences of
groundwater use, such as land subsidence.
b. Water Produced by the Project Can Be Used to Meet Regional Water Supply
Needs
Currently, water demand in the San Bernardino Valley region is met with groundwater, imported
or wholesale water, and local surface water. The availability of these particular supplies is not
necessarily expected to increase in correlation with expected increased water demand that will
occur as population in the region grows, meaning that current supplies may fall short of demand
in the future. The SNRC project involves the recycling and reuse of water that has already been
used, thus maximizing water use efficiency in the region and enabling Valley District to meet
regional water supply needs with less reliance on increasing the regional demand for new sources
of groundwater, imported water, or local surface water supplies. Meeting the local water
demands of EVWD with local recycled water benefits not only the water users, but also the
existing supplies: every gallon of recycled water used in the region means one less gallon that
must be pumped from the ground, imported from other regions, or diverted from local surface
streams.
c. The Availability of New Recycled Water Will Increase Local Operational
Flexibility With Respect to Water Supplies
The project will make available a new source of recycled water that can be used in conjunction
with other sources to give EVWD and Valley District greater operational flexibility in managing
the two districts’ water supplies. When agencies like Valley District and EVWD have access to
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 50 of 51
a variety of water sources, they are better able to adapt their operations to meet changing
circumstances, which improves water supply management over the long and short term and
maximizes the beneficial use of water supplies. The SNRC project will benefit both districts by
increasing their operational flexibility and allowing them to adapt to a wider array of water
supply situations.
3. Mitigation For the Project Will Strategically Improve Habitat Conditions for the
Benefit of the Santa Ana Sucker
A direct consequence of the Project is the need for Valley District and EVWD to mitigate
potential adverse impacts to the Santa Ana sucker (SAS). Valley District has endeavored to
construct a mitigation plan that would, to the extent feasible, eliminate or avoid any significant
impacts to the SAS but, in order to maintain a conservative approach to the environmental
analysis, has deemed the potential impacts to the SAS to be significant and unavoidable because
it cannot rule out the possibility that, despite Valley District’s mitigation efforts, reductions in
flows resulting from the project will adversely affect the SAS.
However, water flows of a certain volume are not the only factor that contributes to the health of
the SAS population. Consequently, the mitigation plan adopts a comprehensive, habitat-focused
approach that is intended to address specific factors that currently limit the health and abundance
of the population, thus improving the long-term resiliency of the sucker population in the Santa
Ana River.
The mitigation plan will involve, among other things, the establishment of a distinct SAS
population in a suitable upper watershed tributary to the Santa Ana River, increasing summer
habitat for the SAS in the Rialto Channel, creating linked microhabitats (deep pools, exposed
gravel substrate, and areas of faster water flows) for SAS adults, creating linked microhabitats
(edge habitat, refugia) for SAS juveniles and young-of-the-year, provision of artificial pulse
flows to mimic natural high-water events that remove sand from the gravel bed, and management
of predator species to increase survival of eggs, larval fish, and young-of-the-year. The proposed
mitigation plan will not restore the lost flows, but it will nevertheless provide important benefits
to the fitness and long term viability of the SAS population. In other words, though Valley
District and EVWD do not discount the potential adverse impact the project may have as a result
of reduced Santa Ana River flows, both have concluded that the mitigation measures that will be
adopted in connection with approval of the Project will also provide important benefits to the
SAS and will support the long-term conservation of the species.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which has primary responsibility for managing and
protecting the SAS, supports this approach to mitigation despite the conclusion that the project
will result in significant impacts to the SAS. One of the key benefits of Valley District’s
approach to mitigation of impacts to the SAS is that it will provide a valuable model that other
water projects in the San Bernardino area can emulate in the future. By taking the first steps
towards an innovative and robust recovery plan for the SAS, Valley District and EVWD will
chart a new course towards recovery of the species and help shift the regional paradigm from one
characterized by conflict to one characterized by cooperation and a multi-front approach to
addressing the various factors that threaten the long-term survival of the species.
East Valley Water District’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sterling Natural Resource Center
March 23, 2016
Page 51 of 51
D. Conclusion
The EVWD Board acknowledges that despite the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures,
approval of the project will result in significant adverse and unavoidable impacts to air quality
and noise levels during construction of the project, to growth inducement, and to the Santa Ana
sucker. However, for the foregoing reasons and based on the EIR and the entire administrative
record, the EVWD Board hereby determines that although the SNRC project will potentially
result in these significant and unavoidable impacts, when the impacts are balanced against the
project’s specific benefits, on the whole the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts and
warrant approval of the project. The EVWD Board further finds that each of the overriding
considerations set forth above constitutes a separate and independent basis for finding that the
benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and warrants
approval of the project.
APPENDIX L
Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA Requirements
Section 15091(d) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines require a public agency to adopt a
program for monitoring or reporting on the changes it has required in the project or conditions of
approval to substantially lessen significant environmental effects. This MMRP summarizes the
mitigation commitments identified in the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project Final EIR
(State Clearinghouse No. 2015101058). Mitigation measures are presented in the same order as
they occur in the Final EIR.
The columns in the MMRP table provide the following information:
•Mitigation Measure(s): The action(s) that will be taken to reduce the impact to a less-
than-significant level.
•Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action: The appropriate steps to
implement and document compliance with the mitigation measures.
•Responsibility: The agency or private entity responsible for ensuring implementation of
the mitigation measure. However, until the mitigation measures are completed, Valley
District, as the CEQA Lead Agency, remains responsible for ensuring that
implementation of the mitigation measures occur in accordance with the MMRP (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15097(a)).
•Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each task, either prior to
construction, during construction and/or after construction.
Sterling Natural Resource Center L-1 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
"EXHIBIT 2"
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
Aesthetics
AES-1: Aboveground buildings/structures associated with the proposed SNRC shall be
designed to be consistent with the aesthetic qualities of existing structures in the
surrounding area to minimize contrasting features.
•Include mitigation measure in project design
specifications.
Valley District Before Construction
AES-2: During project design, a landscape plan shall be prepared for the SNRC that
restores disturbed areas and minimizes effects to local character. Valley District shall
implement and maintain the landscape plan.
•Include mitigation measure in project design
specifications.
•Perform site inspections to ensure mitigation is being
implemented during construction.
Valley District Before and During
Construction
Air Quality
AIR-1: For off-road construction equipment greater than 50 HP, all engines shall be
certified as USEPA Tier 3 at a minimum and Tier 4 where available.
•Include mitigation measure in construction equipment
list.
Valley District,
Construction
Contractor
Before Construction
AIR-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement an Odor Impact Minimization Plan
that includes a monitoring and reporting plan. The plan shall include the following
elements at a minimum:
•Identification of responsible parties
•Description of odor control system design and performance standards
•Odor control system operations plan
•Identification of fence-line odor monitoring and reporting program
•Achievable odor remediation actions and implementation protocol
•Local community outreach program
•Prepare Odor Impact Minimization Plan prior to project
implementation.
•Retain reporting plan and monitoring logs in project file.
Valley District Before Construction
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Disturbance to Special-Status Plants. The following measures will reduce
potential project-related impacts to special-status plant species that may occur adjacent
to the project site within City Creek to a less than significant level. Potential project-
related impacts may result from the construction of the pipeline extension and discharge
structure within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the East Twin Creek Spreading
Grounds.
a)Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, Redlands Basins, and/or the
East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, a focused botanical survey will be
conducted to determine the presence/absence of any of the special-status species
with a moderate or high potential to occur. The focused botanical survey will be
conducted by a botanist or qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of
local special-status plant species, and according to accepted protocol outlined by
•A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction
botanical survey as defined.
•Prepare documentation to record results of the pre-
construction survey.
•If a special status plant species is detected, then
implement measures as appropriate.
•If impact avoidance is not feasible, then implement
measures as appropriate. Prepare Biological
Assessment as suggested.
•Perform construction site inspections to ensure
measures are implemented properly. An inspection log
Valley District,
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center L-2 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
the CNPS and/or CDFW.
b)If a special status plant species is discovered in a project impact area, informal
consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required prior to the impact
occurring to develop an appropriate avoidance strategy. Depending on the
sensitivity of the species, relocation, site restoration, or other habitat improvement
actions may be an acceptable option to avoid significant impacts, as determined
through consultation with the resource agencies.
c)If impact avoidance of a state or federally-listed species is not feasible, Valley
District shall quantify the impacted acreage supporting state or federally-listed
plant species within the construction area and estimated perennial flow area and
prepare a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act. The
Biological Assessment shall quantify compensation requirements for affected
plants species. Valley District shall implement the conservation measures and
compensation requirements identified through consultation by USACE with both
CDFW and USFWS.
d)Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of the
discharge including within the City Creek channel resulting from perennial flow
shall require on-site replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1
in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat
would be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and
USFWS.
will be maintained to document results of site
inspections.
•Retain copies of pre-construction survey documentation
and any subsequent reports in the project file.
•Consult with USFWS and CDFW to prepare and
implement on-site or off-site compensation of 3:1 or 1:1
and mitigate impacts to RAFSS habitat.
BIO-2: Disturbance to Special-Status Wildlife. The following measures will reduce
potential project-related impacts to special-status wildlife species that may occur within
disturbed and native habitats, to a less than significant level. Potential project-related
impacts may result from construction of the SNRC, construction of the discharge
structures within City Creek and other discharge locations, and perennial discharges to
City Creek or other discharge locations.
a.Prior to the start of construction within City Creek or other discharge locations,
Valley District shall conduct focused surveys within the project impact areas to
determine if any state or federally-listed wildlife species (southwestern willow
flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and least
Bell’s vireo) are located within project impact areas. Focused surveys will be
conducted by a qualified and/or permitted biologist, following approved survey
protocol. Survey results will be forwarded to CDFW and USFWS. If state or
federally-listed species are determined to occur on the project site with the
potential to be impacted by the project, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS
will be required.
b.If impact avoidance is not feasible, Valley District shall quantify the impacted
acreage supporting state or federally-listed wildlife species within the construction
area and estimated perennial flow area and prepare a Biological Assessment
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction
surveys for state or federally-listed wildlife species
(southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California
gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and least
Bell’s vireo) as defined.
•A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction survey
for burrowing owl as defined.
•A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction site
clearing survey for project impact area of natural habitat
within City Creek.
•Prepare documentation to record results of all of the
pre-construction survey.
•If a state or federally-listed species is detected, then
implement measures as appropriate. If impact
avoidance is not feasible, implement measures as
Valley District,
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project L-3 ESA /150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the
State Endangered Species Act. The Biological Assessment shall quantify
compensation requirements for affected wildlife species. Valley District shall
implement the conservation measures and compensation requirements identified
through consultation by USACE with both CDFW and USFWS.
c.Prior to the start of construction of the SNRC building and the recycled water
pipeline along 6th Street, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted to
determine the presence/absence of burrowing owl adjacent to the project area.
The focused burrowing owl survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist and
following the survey guidelines included in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (2012). If burrowing owl is observed within undeveloped habitat
within or immediately adjacent to the project impact area, avoidance/minimization
measures would be required such as establishing a suitable buffer around the nest
(typically 500-feet) and monitoring during construction, or delaying construction
until after the nest is no longer active and the burrowing owls have left. However, if
burrowing owl avoidance is infeasible, a qualified biologist shall implement a
passive relocation program in accordance with the Example Components for
Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans of the CDFW 2012 Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).
d.Prior to the start of construction within City Creek, pre-construction site clearing
surveys will be conducted of the project impact area within natural habitats. Any
special status ground-dwelling wildlife will be removed from the immediate impact
area and released in the nearby area.
e.Permanent impacts to RAFSS habitat from construction and operation of the
discharge including within City Creek channel resulting from perennial flow shall
require on-site replacement or off-site compensation at a ratio of at least 3:1 in
consultation with CDFW and USFWS. Temporary impacts to RAFSS habitat would
be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1:1 in consultation with CDFW and USFWS.
appropriate. Prepare Biological assessment as
suggested.
•If a burrowing owl is detected, then implement
measures as appropriate. If burrowing owl avoidance is
not feasible, implement measures as appropriate.
•If any special status ground-dwelling wildlife are
detected, removed immediately from impact area and
release to nearby area.
•Perform construction site inspections to ensure
measures are implemented properly. An inspection log
will be maintained to document results of site
inspections.
•Retain copies of both of the pre-construction surveys
documentation in the project file.
•Consult with USFWS and CDFW to prepare and
implement on-site or off-site compensation of 3:1 or 1:1
and mitigate impacts to RAFSS habitat.
BIO-3: Disturbance to Santa Ana Sucker. The following measures will reduce potential
project-related impacts to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to Santa Ana
sucker while contributing to the long-term conservation of the species.
a)The diversion of wastewater flow to the new SNRC shall not occur until either the
Upper Santa Ana HCP has been fully executed by the USFWS and CDFW or
Valley District’s SAS HMMP has been approved by the USFWS and CDFW.
b)The Valley District will be a signatory to the Upper SAR HCP that will include the
proposed project as a covered activity. The HCP will include a menu of projects to
be implemented by the signatory agencies that will create habitat, restore habitat,
and establish self-sustaining populations in the watershed. The HCP will be
approved by the CDFW and USFWS.
c)In the event that the Upper Santa Ana River HCP is not approved in time to meet
•Verify the Upper Santa Ana HCP is executed and
approved before project construction begins.
•If Upper Santa Ana HCP is not approved in time,
prepare and implement SAS HMMP.
•A contracted and qualified entity will implement the
HMMP
•Verify that the HMMP has been prepared and approved
by the applicable entities.
•Verify that the agreement for the high pulse flow events
has been approved by the City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department.
Valley District Before and During
Construction and on-
going operations
Sterling Natural Resource Center L-4 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
the project schedule, Valley District shall prepare and implement a SAS Habitat
Monitoring and Management Plan (HMMP) that identifies habitat improvement
actions, implementation methods, monitoring, and maintenance methods. The
HMMP will consist of measures listed below to offset direct and indirect impacts to
the Santa Ana sucker and its habitat resulting from the loss of 6 MGD of
discharged water. The HMMP will be implemented by a contracted, qualified and
permitted entity such as the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District
(RCRCD) in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW. The HMMP will identify the
goals and performance criteria of each conservation measure and will identify
annual reporting and work forecasting requirements. The HMMP will be approved
by the USFWS and CDFW under their authority to enforce the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts. The proposed diversion of 6 MGD from the RIX
discharge will not occur until the HMMP has been approved by USFWS and
CDFW. The HMMP will include the following elements.
•SAS -1: Microhabitat Enhancements. The HMMP will identify microhabitat
enhancements within the upstream reach of the affected river segment using
natural materials to increase scour and pool formation. This could include
placement of large boulders and/or large woody debris to increase velocity of
flow and gravel bar patches as well as deep pool refugia areas.
•SAS -2: Aquatic Predator Control Program. The HMMP will include an
Aquatic Predator Control Program to be implemented within the upstream
reach of the affected river segment that will target and remove exotic fish,
amphibians, and reptiles immediately prior to the SAS spawning season.
•SAS -3: Exotic Weed Management Program. The HMMP will include an
Exotic Weed Management Program targeting the removal of non-native
species such as tamarisk, castor bean, tree of heaven, etc. The HMMP will
include an annual maintenance and performance goal for non-native plant
removal within the upper reach of the affected river segment.
•SAS -4: High Flow Pulse Events. The HMMP will identify means to create
high flow pulse events as needed based on substrate conditions, up to 2 times
per year. The high flow pulse events would be implemented through a
cooperative agreement with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department.
•SAS -5: Supplemental Water. Valley District will increase habitat availability in
Rialto Channel during the summer months by providing cool supplemental
water from nearby groundwater source to lower the water temperature in this
tributary. Supplemental water will be added to the Rialto Channel when water
temperatures reach 85 degrees. Supplemental water could be pumped
groundwater or other water source. The discharge into the Rialto Drain will
require a discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
•SAS -6: Upper Watershed SAS Population Establishment. The HMMP will
•Verify that the discharge permit has been prepared and
approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•Perform construction site inspections to ensure
measures are implemented properly and the
construction contractor is complying with construction
limitations. An inspection log will be maintained to
document results of site inspections.
•Retain copies of Upper Santa Ana HCP or SAS HMMP
documentation and construction site inspection logs in
the project file.
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project L-5 ESA /150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
outline a plan for establishing a population of Santa Ana sucker in City Creek,
or other suitable watershed tributary, in coordination with the Wildlife
Agencies. The HMMP will identify measures to directly increase the number of
Santa Ana sucker in the SAR population, increase the amount of suitable and
occupied habitat in this watershed, and distribute the risk of a catastrophic
event between multiple locations. The HMMP will identify the goals and
success criteria of the establishment plan and will identify the amount of
financial assistance to be provided by Valley District for the regionally-
beneficial population establishment program.
• SAS -7: Monitoring. The HMMP will outline a monitoring program to collect
hydrology data in the segment of river between the RIX discharge and Mission
Boulevard. The data will include flow velocity and depth.
BIO-4: Construction Best Management Practices. The Contractor shall implement the
following Best Management Practices during construction of the pipeline and discharge
structure adjacent to and within City Creek to protect any adjacent sensitive natural
communities that provide habitat for special-status species.
a) The following water quality protection measures shall be implemented during
construction:
• Stationary engines, such as compressors, generators, light plants, etc., shall
have drip pans beneath them to prevent any leakage from entering runoff or
receiving waters.
• All construction equipment shall be inspected for leaks and maintained
regularly to avoid soil contamination. Leaks and smears of petroleum products
will be wiped clean prior to use.
• Any grout waste or spills will be cleaned up immediately and disposed of off-
site.
• Spill kits capable of containing hazardous spills will be stored on-site.
b) To prevent inadvertent entrapment of common and special-status wildlife during
construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two-feet
deep shall be covered with tarp, plywood or similar materials at the close of each
working day to prevent animals from being trapped. Ramps may be constructed of
earth fill or wooden planks within deep walled trenches to allow for animals to
escape, if necessary. Before such holes or trenches are backfilled, they should be
thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If trapped wildlife are observed, escape
ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow escape.
All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are stored at a
construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected
for burrowing owls and nesting birds before the pipe is subsequently buried,
capped, or otherwise used or moved.
• Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
• Conduct evaluation of project area for trapped animals
during construction. If trapped animals are found within
construction sites, then implement measures as
defined.
• Perform construction site inspections to ensure
mitigation measures are implemented properly.
• Retain copies of survey documentation and
construction site inspection logs in the project file.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center L-6 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
BIO-5: To minimize potential construction-related project impacts to avian species that
may be nesting on or immediately adjacent to the project area, the following measures
will reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level.
a. To avoid potential impacts to birds that may be nesting on or immediately adjacent
to the project area, construction of the project should avoid the general avian
breeding season of February through August.
b. If construction must occur during the general avian breeding season, a pre-
construction clearance survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the start
of construction, to determine if any active nests or sign of nesting activity is located
on or immediately adjacent to the project area, specifically at the proposed SNRC
location. An additional survey shall be conducted within 3 days prior to the
commencement of construction activities. If no nesting activity is observed during
the pre-construction survey, construction may commence without potential impacts
to nesting birds.
c. If an active nest is observed, a suitable buffer will be placed around the nest,
depending on sensitivity of the nesting species, and onsite monitoring may be
required during construction to ensure no disturbance or take of the nest occurs.
Construction may continue in other areas of the project and construction activities
may only encroach within the buffer at the discretion of the monitoring biologist.
The buffer will remain in place until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no
longer considered active.
• Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
• If construction must occur during avian breeding
season, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-
construction clearance survey for nesting birds as
defined.
• Prepare documentation to record results of the pre-
construction survey.
• If nests are detected, then implement measures as
appropriate. Perform construction site inspections to
ensure measures are implemented properly. An
inspection log will be maintained to document results of
site inspections.
• Retain copies of pre-construction survey documentation
and construction site inspection logs in the project file.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, Valley District shall retain a
qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all
mitigation related to cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct a
Phase I survey for all areas within the project impact area that have not received a
survey within the last five years, including treated conveyance pipeline corridors.
• Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
• A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey shall be
completed for all sites within project area that have not
been surveyed within the last five years.
• Perform site inspections to ensure construction
contractor is in compliance with any avoidance
measures or other mitigation requirements.
• Retain copies of construction site inspection logs in the
project file.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project L-7 ESA /150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
CUL-2: Prior to start of ground-disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist shall
conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction
personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be
encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent
discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. Valley District shall ensure that
construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain
documentation demonstrating attendance.
•Perform mitigation measure prior to construction.
•Verify all construction personnel have gone through
training by retaining login records in project file.
Valley District;
construction
contractor
Before Construction
CUL-3: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, Valley
District shall immediately cease all work activities within approximately 100 feet of the
discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Construction shall not
resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with Valley District on the
significance of the resource.
If it is determined that a discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic
property under the NHPA or a historical or unique archaeological resource under CEQA,
avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation
in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological
context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups
who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished
by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping,
or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that
preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through
excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Treatment Plan shall be prepared
and implemented by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with Valley District that
provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information
contained in the archaeological resource. Valley District shall consult with appropriate
Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native
American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that
which is scientifically important, are considered.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•In the event that paleontological resources are
discovered, documentation of the assessment of the
significance of the find will be prepared and retained in
the project file
•Perform site inspections to ensure compliance with
cultural sensitivity requirements. Retain inspection
forms in the project file.
•Paleontological monitoring reports and logs will be
retained in project file.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
CUL-4: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be conducted for the proposed SNRC
in areas that are subject to excavations in excess of 15 feet below ground surface.
Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor
(QPM). The QPM, in consultation with the Valley District, may reduce or increase
monitoring based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors. If
construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction,
regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease within 50 feet
of the find until the QPM has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to
the appropriate treatment.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•Retain copies of the paleontological monitoring report
and logs in the project file.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center L-8 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
CUL-5: If human remains are encountered, Valley District shall halt work within 100 feet
of the find and contact the San Bernardino County Coroner in accordance with PRC
Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC
Section 5097.98 (as amended by Assembly Bill 2641). The NAHC shall designate a MLD
for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the
MLD, Valley District shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery
occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to
generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further
activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•Perform site inspections to ensure contractor is
following procedures outlined in this measure.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
During Construction
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYDRO-1: Valley District will prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to
ensure that the SNRC facility design complies with stormwater management goals of the
MS4.
•Prepare the WQMP prior to project implementation.
•Retain copies of the plan in the project file.
•Retain copies of sampling and analyses conducted in
accordance with the WQMP in the project file.
•Conduct site inspections in accordance with the WQMP
to ensure proper implementation of stormwater
management goals.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
HYDRO-2: Valley District shall prepare and implement a groundwater monitoring
program that includes installation of an array of groundwater monitoring wells sufficient
to characterize the effects of the discharge on local groundwater quality. If monitoring
shows that beneficial uses of the groundwater may become adversely affected by the
discharge, the monitoring program would require either modifications to treatment,
modify the well screened area by sealing the affected portion of the screen in the
impacted groundwater bearing zone, or compensation for adversely affected
groundwater wells through replacement of the affected well or through providing
replacement water.
•Prepare the groundwater monitoring program prior to
project implementation.
•Retain copies of the program report in the project file.
•During plan implementation, retain copies of the
monitoring reports in the project file.
•Implement suggested mitigation measure if monitoring
shows groundwater is adversely affected.
Valley District Before and During
Construction
HYDRO-3: The City Creek discharge structures shall be designed with velocity
dissipation features as needed to prevent scour at the point of discharge. The design
and location of these discharge facilities would be approved by the SBCFCD and
USACE to ensure that they do not impede high flow capacity.
•Include mitigation measure in project design
specifications.
•Retain specifications related to discharge facilities in the
project file.
Valley District Before Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project L-9 ESA /150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
HYDRO-4: Valley District shall prepare a City Creek Channel Vegetation Management
Plan in coordination with SBCFCD and CDFW that outlines vegetation management
measures to minimize impacts to the flood control function within City Creek. The plan
will include periodic vegetation trimming to remove large trees that could impact flood
control facilities downstream. The plan will outline schedule, permitting and reporting
requirements.
• Prepare Vegetation Management Plan prior to project
implementation.
• Retain Vegetation Management Plan in the project file.
Valley District Before Construction
HYDRO-5: Valley District shall prepare an Operational Manual for the discharge to City
Creek that identifies when discharges would be conveyed to other discharge basins to
avoid contributing to flood flows in City Creek during peak flow periods.
• Prepare Operational Manual prior to project
implementation.
• Retain Operation Manual in the project file.
Valley District Before Construction
Noise
NOISE-1: Valley District shall implement the following measures during construction:
a) Include design measures necessary to reduce construction noise levels to comply
with local noise ordinances. These measures may include noise barriers, curtains,
or shields.
b) Place noise-generating construction activities (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) away from the nearest noise-
sensitive land uses.
c) Contiguous properties shall be notified in advance of construction activities. A
contact name and number shall be provided to contiguous properties to report
excessive construction noise.
• Include mitigation measure in project design
specifications and contractor specifications.
• Perform site inspections to ensure contractor is in
compliance with noise mitigation measures.
• Retain copies of inspection logs in the project file.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
NOISE-2: Noise-generating machinery at the proposed SNRC shall be enclosed within
structures that are designed with insulation sufficient to comply with applicable nighttime
noise standards at the facility fenceline.
• Include mitigation measure in project design
specifications.
Valley District Before Construction
NOISE-3: Valley District shall establish a 24-hour Hot-Line to serve the local community.
Valley District shall ensure that neighbor concerns are investigated and addressed
immediately. The Hot-Line number shall be provided to the neighboring properties and
be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the facility.
• Organize and employ staff members for Hot-Line
• Record all calls and retain copies of records
• Publicize Hot Line number to customers and general
public
Valley District Post Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center L-10 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
Public Services, Utilities, and Energy
UTIL: During design and prior to construction, Valley District shall verify the nature and
location of underground utilities before the start of any construction that would require
excavation. Valley District shall notify and coordinate with public and private utility
providers at least 48 hours before the commencement of work adjacent to any located
utility. The contractor shall be required to notify the service provider in advance of
service interruptions to allow the service provider sufficient time to notify customers. The
contractor shall be required to coordinate timing of interruptions with the service
providers to minimize the frequency and duration of interruptions.
• Conduct search for underground utilities prior to
construction.
• Include mitigation measure in contractor specifications
and construction schedule.
Valley District,
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
UTIL-2: Valley District shall require the use of energy efficient equipment, including but
not limited to, pumps, conveyance features, and lighting for the proposed SNRC and
pump stations.
• Include mitigation measure in project design
specifications and construction contractor
specifications.
Valley District,
Construction
Contractor
During Construction
Traffic and Transportation
TR-1: Valley District shall require the contractor to prepare a traffic control plan that
identifies specific traffic control measures to ensure access and safety on the local
roadway network. The traffic control plan will include the following elements at a
minimum:
• A schedule of lane closures and road closures over the construction period
• Measures to maintain traffic flow at all times across the construction zone
including requiring flaggers to direct traffic when only one lane of traffic is available
• Detour routes and notification procedures if full road closures are needed
• Lane closure notifications to the City of Highland, City of San Bernardino and City
of Redlands and local emergency services providers
• Temporary signalization modifications (if any) for intersection signals
• On-road traffic control features and signage compliant with city traffic control
requirements
• Maintain access to residence and business driveways, public facilities, and
recreational resources at all times to the extent feasible; Minimize access
disruptions to businesses and residences
• Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with metal plates at the
end of each workday to accommodate traffic and access.
• Identify all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g.,
horizontal boring, directional drilling or night construction) will be used to minimize
impacts to traffic flow
• Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
• Verify that the Traffic Control Plan has been prepared
and approved by the applicable local jurisdiction(s).
• Perform site inspections to routinely verify proper
implementation of the approved Plan.
• Perform site inspections to ensure contractor is in
compliance with plan.
• Retain copies of the Plan and inspection records in the
project file.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center Project L-11 ESA /150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE L-1 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE STERLING NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule
TR-2: Valley District shall prepare a notification plan for communication with affected
residents and businesses prior to the start of construction. Advance public notification
shall include posting of notices and appropriate signage of construction activities. The
written notification shall include the construction schedule, the exact location and
duration of activities within each street (i.e., which lanes and access point/driveways
would be blocked on which days and for how long), and a toll-free telephone number for
receiving questions or complaints.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•Verify that the notification plan has been prepared prior
to construction.
•Retain copies of public notifications in the project file.
•Retain copies of questions and complaints received by
telephone.
Valley District;
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
TR-3: Prior to installation of pipelines in East 5th Street, Valley District shall coordinate
with the City of Highland to ensure that the proposed East 5th Street curb and drainage
improvements are conducted simultaneously with the pipeline installation to avoid
impacting the street twice in a short period of time.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•Coordinate with City of Highland to schedule
construction of pipeline installation.
Valley District,
Construction
Contractor
Before Construction
TR-4: Valley District shall ensure that deliveries, biosolids haul trips, and worker shift
transitions are discouraged during the period of 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 2:30 to 3:30 PM
corresponding to peak pick up and drop off times at the high school.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications and instruct construction workers prior to
construction.
•Verify construction workers are performing deliveries at
desired times but periodic site inspections.
Valley District,
Construction
Contractor
Before and During
Construction
TR-5: Valley District shall design turn-in and turn-out ramps adjacent to 5th Street to
accommodate solids haul trips and material deliveries ingress and egress in a manner
that ensures safe traffic conditions. Roadway improvements including modifications to
the curb shall be approved by the City of Highland Department of Transportation.
•Include mitigation measure in construction contractor
specifications.
•Verify that the roadway improvement has been
approved by the City of Highland Department of
Transportation.
Valley District Before Construction
Sterling Natural Resource Center L-12 ESA / 150005.00
Final Environmental Impact Report March 2016
Notice of Determination Appendix D
TO: FROM:
D Office of Planning and Research
For U.S. Mail: Street Address:
Public Agency: East Valley Water District
P.O. Box 3044 1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Sacramento, CA 95814
0 County Clerk
County of: San Bernardino Clerk of the Board
Address: 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Address: 3 11 11 Greenspot Road
Hioh)and, CA 92346
Contact: John Mura
Phone: (909) 885-4900
Lead Agency (if different from above):
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Address: 380 East Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Contact: Heather Dyer
Phone: (909) 387-9256
Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse): -=2:..::0....:.l.::.5..:..10::....:...:10:..::5:..::8:...._ ____________ _
Project Title: Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC)
Project Location (include county): North Del Rosa Drive between East 5th Street and East 6th Street, Highland,
California, San Bernardino County
Project Description: The project would construct and operate the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) in the City of
Highland, which would provide tertiary treatment to wastewater generated within East Valley Water
District's (EVWD) service area and an Administration Center that would act as the operations
facility. In addition to the SNRC, the project would include modifications to EVWD's wastewater
collection facilities in order to convey flows to the new recycled water treatment plant, as well as a
treated water conveyance and discharge system. Currently, pursuant to an agreement, EVWD
conveys wastewater for secondary treatment at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant
(SBWRP) located in the City of San Bernardino. The SBWRP sends its treated wastewater for
tertiary treatment at the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction (RIX) facility located in the City of Colton
where it is discharged to the Santa Ana River (SAR). The proposed SNRC would produce
disinfected tertiary recycled water (Title 22 quality water) for unrestricted use. The treated water
would be discharged to City Creek, existing basins currently operated by the City of Redlan ds
(Redlands Basins), to the East Twin Creek Spreading Grounds, other alternative recharge basins or to
the Santa Ana River. This project would also include utilizing the existing SAR pipeline as a carrier
pipe and refurbishing the groundwater wells near the Rialto channel to supply supplemental water in
the SAR.
This is to advise that the East Valley Water District has approved the above described project on
(0 Lead Agency or � Responsible Agency)
March 23, 2016
(Date)
and has made the following determinations regarding the above described projects.
I.The project[� will D will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2.� An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.D A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code.
"EXHIBIT 3"
3.Mitigation measures [� were D were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.
4.A mitigation repo11ing or monitoring plan[� was D was not] adopted for this project.
5.A statement of Overriding Considerations[� was D was not] adopted for this project.
6.Findings[� were D were not] made pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA.
This is to ce11ify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the Negative
Declaration, is available to the General Public at:
East Valley Water District at 31111 Greenspot Road, Highland CA 92346
Signature (Public Agency) ----------------Title: ____________ _
Date: --------------Date Received filing at OPR: _____________ _
Authority cited: Section 2 I 083, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Section 2 I 000-2 I I 74, Public Resources Code.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.03
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2016.03
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES PAID
PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD OF A CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND AND/OR WATER
RECYCLING FUND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION
WHEREAS, East Valley Water District (the “District”) has entered into an agreement
entitled Framework Agreement for the Construction and Operation of Potential Groundwater
Replenishment Facilities By and Between East Valley Water District and San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District (“Agreement”) which is effective as of October 6, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement contemplates the design and construction of public facilities
in the form of a wastewater treatment plant and associated and necessary pipelines and
infrastructure (the “Project”), which will treat wastewater generated within the District’s service
area. The Project will produce recycled water for groundwater recharge and other beneficial
uses, which will benefit the San Bernardino Basin Area, which is consistent with the policies
established by the State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy adopted in 2009,
as well as article X, section 2 of the California Constitution and Water Code section 13576(k).
The Project will be known as the Sterling Natural Resource Center; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the District is to finance all work associated
with or required by the Project and may make any arrangement that it deems appropriate for such
financing without the consent of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District which will
construct and operate the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the Project was certified and CEQA
Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the project were adopted by the lead agency, San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District on March 15, 2016, and were considered and adopted by the District as
a responsible agency on March 23, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the District desires and intends to finance the construction and/or
reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided
by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (State
Water Board); and
WHEREAS, the State Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the
sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax
purposes (the "Obligations"), and
WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State
Water Board of the Project Funds, the District has incurred and will continue to incur certain
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.03
Page 2 of 3
capital expenditures (the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project from available moneys of
the District for which the District will seek reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, the District has determined that those moneys advanced prior to and after
the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is
necessary to reimburse the District for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of East Valley
Water District as follows:
1. The District hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse
Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water
Board of the Project Funds.
2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project Funds is
$126,000,000.
3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the
District will expend moneys for the construction portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed
with Project Funds.
4. Each District expenditure will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital
account under general federal income tax principles.
5. To the best of our knowledge, this District is not aware of the previous adoption
of official intents by the District that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of
reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued.
6. This resolution is adopted as official intent of the District in order to comply with
Treasury Regulation §1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating
to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs.
7. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this District so finds,
determines and represents.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 2016.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
___________________________________
Ronald L. Coats
Board President
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.03
Page 3 of 3
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2016.03 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting
held March 23, 2016.
_____________________________________
John J. Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.08
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2016.08
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER/CEO TO SIGN AND FILE
ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION FOR
FINANCING AGREEMENT FROM THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD
WHEREAS, East Valley Water District (the “District”) has entered into an agreement
entitled Framework Agreement for the Construction and Operation of Potential Groundwater
Replenishment Facilities By and Between East Valley Water District and San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District (“Agreement”) which is effective as of October 6, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement contemplates the design and construction of public facilities
in the form of a wastewater treatment plant and associated and necessary pipelines and
infrastructure (the “Project”), which will treat wastewater generated within the District’s service
area. The Project will produce recycled water for groundwater recharge and other beneficial
uses, which will benefit the San Bernardino Basin Area, which is consistent with the policies
established by the State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy adopted in 2009,
as well as article X, section 2 of the California Constitution and Water Code section 13576(k).
The Project will be known as the Sterling Natural Resource Center; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the District is to finance all work associated
with or required by the Project and may make any arrangement that it deems appropriate for such
financing without the consent of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District which will
construct and operate the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the Project was certified and CEQA
Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overwriting Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project were adopted by the lead agency, San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District on March 15, 2016, and were considered and adopted by the District as
a responsible agency on March 23, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the District is pursuing funding for the Project through the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund and/or Water Recycling Funding Program; and
WHEREAS, funding from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and/or Water
Recycling Funding Program would provide a rate of funding unavailable from other sources and
save significant financing costs for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the funding application requires the adoption of an authorizing resolution
designating a representative of the District to sign and file a financial assistance application and
all necessary documents related to a financing agreement with the State.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.08
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of East Valley
Water District as follows:
1. The General Manager / CEO is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for
and on behalf of the District, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from
the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the
Project.
2. The General Manager / CEO, or his designee, is designated to provide the
assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application,
including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control
Board and any amendments or changes thereto.
3. The Engineering Manager is designated to represent the District in carrying out
the District’s responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement
requests on behalf of the District and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 2016.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
___________________________________
Ronald L. Coats
Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2016.08 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting
held March 23, 2016.
_____________________________________
John J. Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.09
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2016.09
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT DECLARING THE DISTRICT’S INTENT TO PLEDGE NET REVENUES
OF THE WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND TO PAYMENT OF STATE
REVOLVING FUND/WATER RECYCLING FUND FINANCING
WHEREAS, East Valley Water District (the “District”) has entered into an agreement
entitled Framework Agreement for the Construction, and Operation of Potential Groundwater
Replenishment Facilities By and Between East Valley Water District and San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District (“Agreement”) which is effective as of October 6, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement contemplates the design and construction of public facilities
in the form of a wastewater treatment plant and associated and necessary pipelines and
infrastructure (the “Project”), which will treat wastewater generated within the District’s service
area. The Project will produce recycled water for groundwater recharge and other beneficial
uses, which will benefit the San Bernardino Basin Area, which is consistent with the policies
established by the State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy adopted in 2009,
as well as article X, section 2 of the California Constitution and Water Code section 13576(k).
The Project will be known as the Sterling Natural Resource Center; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the District is to finance all work associated
with or required by the Project and may make any arrangement that it deems appropriate for such
financing without the consent of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District which will
construct and operate the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the Project was certified and CEQA
Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project were adopted by the lead Agency, San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, on March 15, 2016, and were considered and adopted by the District
as a responsible agency on March 23, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the District is pursuing funding for the Project from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and/or Water Recycling Funding Program; and
WHEREAS, the General Manager / CEO has been authorized to sign the financing
agreement, amendments, and certifications for funding under the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund and/or Water Recycling Funding Program; and
WHEREAS, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and/or Water Recycling Funding
Program require each recipient agency to pledge one or more sources of revenue for repayment
of State Water Resources Control Board financial assistance.
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2016.09
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water
District as follows:
1. The District dedicates and pledges its net wastewater enterprise fund revenues to
payment of any and all Clean Water State Revolving Fund and/or Water Recycling Funding
Program financing for the Project.
2. The District commits to collecting such revenues and maintaining such fund
throughout the term of such financing and until the District has satisfied its repayment obligation
thereunder unless modification or change is approved in writing by the State Water Resources
Control Board. So long as the financing agreement(s) are outstanding, the District’s pledge
hereunder shall constitute a lien in favor of the State Water Resources Control Board on the
foregoing fund and revenues without any further action necessary. So long as the financing
agreement(s) are outstanding, the District commits to maintaining the fund and revenues at levels
sufficient to meet its obligations under the financing agreement(s).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 2016.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
___________________________________
Ronald L. Coats
Board President
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
2016.09 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting
held March 23, 2016.
_____________________________________
John J. Mura
Secretary, Board of Directors
BOARD AGENDA STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #5.
Meeting Date: March 23, 2016
Disc ussion Item
To: G o verning Board Memb ers
From: G eneral Manager/CEO
Subject: Fac ility R ental Up d ate
RECOMMENDATION:
T his report is provided to the Board of Directors for information only, no action is required.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
East Valley Water Dis trict has b een making the Head q uarters fac ility availab le for p rivate and pub lic events
s inc e 2014. T his loc atio n offers a flexible and affordable optio n where gues ts may utilize the Bo ard R o o m,
lo b b y, kitc hen, parking lot, and /or outdoor s pac e fo r b o th p ublic and private events . In o rder to pro vide
exc ellent c usto mer s ervice, at leas t o ne Dis trict repres entative is available o n-site, d ep ending o n the anticip ated
attendance or event complexity.
There have been 28 non-East Valley Water Dis tric t events held at the headquarters fac ility, with 18 ad ditio nal
s ched uled to-date fo r the remaind er of 2016. Thes e events have ranged in s ize and complexity, but have b een
greatly s uc ces s ful. The Dis tric t regularly receives p rais e for the ability o f the c o mmunity to utilize the spac e.
Private events have inc luded:
Miles tone birthday parties
Banquets
Wed d ings
Bab y Sho wers
Home Owners Assoc iation Meetings
Celebratio ns o f Life
Wed d ing Annivers aries
Ap p rec iatio n Events
Chamb er of Commerc e Events
Upc o ming Events includ e:
G rad uatio n p arties
Fundrais ers
Wed d ings
Miles tone Birthdays
Community Celebratio ns
Home Owners Assoc iation Meetings
In an effort to provide a quality experience for the public, the District budgeted and purchased event specific
furniture including round tables, chairs, and pipe and drape. T hese items are commonly requested and avoid
additional unforeseen costs for the host. Additionally, these items, along with future improvements, are included in
the approved fee schedule to allow for facility use replacements and enhancements.
Up to this point, Facility Rentals have been scheduled primarily based on word-of-mouth. For community
members interested in having an event at the headquarter, information available on the website and in the office.
With the recent redesign of the Facility Flyer, staff will be increasing promotion efforts to the community.
Currently P ublic Affairs and Administration staff assist customers with initial interest questions, facility tours, and
contract execution. T he events are monitored by staff members from different programs, primarily P ublic Affairs
and Facilities. T his has allowed for success assessment and adjustments to the program to enhance the customer
experience and streamline processes. T here is a part time P ublic Affairs Representative identified in the Fiscal Year
2015/16 Budget that will be recruited for now that the initial program complexities have been resolved. Additional
staffing may be needed based on demand from the community, including event coordination, event staffing, and
facility maintenance.
Staff will continue to monitor this program and provide additional updates to the Governing Board.
AGENCY IDEALS AND ENDEAVORS:
Id eals and End eavor II - Maintain An Environment Committed To Elevated P ublic S ervic e
(A) - Strive to p ro vide world class cus tomer relatio ns
Id eals and End eavor IV - F ully Understand C hallenges To Cultivate Effec tive Solutions
(A) - Support o ngo ing bus iness p ro cess improvement
(E) - Co nduct p o s t imp lementation evaluations and make improvements as nec es s ary
FISCAL IMPACT :
There is no fis c al imp act assoc iated with this agend a item.
Res p ectfully s ubmitted:
Rec o mmended b y:
Jo hn Mura
General Manager / C EO
Kelly Malloy
Pub lic Affairs Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Facility Use Prese ntation P resentation
MARCH 23, 2016
FACILITY USE
UPDATE
FACILITY USES
•Private Events Held:
–Milestone Birthday Parties
–Banquets
–Weddings
–Baby Showers
–Home Owners Association
Meetings
–Celebrations of Life
–Wedding Anniversaries
–Appreciation Events
–Chamber of Commerce Events
•Upcoming Events:
–Graduation Parties
–Fundraisers
–Weddings
–Milestone Birthdays
–Community Celebrations
–Home Owners Association
Meetings
2
28 Non-East Valley Events in 2015 18 Events Scheduled for 2016
OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES
3
COMMUNITY COMPLIMENTS
“Thank you for everything. Your staff was great to work with.
Received many compliments on the facility. It was perfect, we
all had a great time!”
-Sweet 16
7
“Thank you very much for accommodating us for using the
East Valley Water District as my venue for our 25th Wedding
Anniversary. It’s really a memorable moments for us and
also with our guests.
- Anniversary
COMMUNITY COMPLIMENTS
“Thank you for all of your help. Mr. Barlow and crew were a
great help this morning. We appreciate your assistance.”
- Appreciation Event
8
“On behalf of the BSCC we would like to sincerely thank you for the
venue and for each staff member who provided assistance. Your
staff went above and beyond and it did not go unnoticed. Again we
thank you and your staff for a successful night.”
- Public Workshop
INVESTMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY
Round
Tables
Chairs
Pipe
and
Drape
9
SPREADING THE WORD
•Word of Mouth
•Community
Conversation Promotion
10
EVENT PROCESS
Initial Customer Contact
Event Set-up Coordination
Event Staffing
Facility Evaluation
Deposit Return
11
•Facility Tour
•Overview of Policy/Contract/Fees
•Follow-up Questions
•Deposit/Payment
•Walk Through
•Security Guard Coordination
•Varied Level of Staffing
•Rental Delivery
LOOKING AHEAD
12
Long-
Term
Staffing
Event
Scheduling
Promotion
Additional
Capital
Purchases